U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 21318 / December 2, 2009
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sonja Anticevic, et al., 05 Civ. 6991 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y.)
Court Enters Default Judgment Against Anticevic in Widespread Insider Trading Scheme
On November 30, 2009, the Honorable Kimba M. Wood, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, entered a default judgment against defendant Sonja Anticevic in an action filed in 2005 by the Commission, charging 17 defendants with collectively engaging in a widespread and brazen insider trading scheme, which netted almost $7 million in illicit gains, through trading in at least 26 stocks. Judge Wood ordered that Anticevic be permanently enjoined from future violations of the federal securities laws, and found Anticevic liable to pay disgorgement of $2,056,055.15, prejudgment interest of $578,223.25, and civil penalties of $3,084,082.73 (representing one-and-a-half times Anticevic's ill-gotten gains).
As alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint, Anticevic, a retired seamstress who lives in Croatia, is the aunt of co-defendant, David Pajcin, one of the ringleaders of three insider trading schemes. Anticevic gave Pajcin permission to execute trades through two domestic brokerage accounts held in her name, and Pajcin repeatedly did so, while promising Anticevic proceeds from his trading in exchange for use of the accounts.
Judge Wood found that Anticevic failed to answer the original Complaint, as well as the Second and Third Amended Complaints. Although Anticevic's counsel filed an answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint, he represented to the Court that he had not been able to contact his client for some time. Judge Wood subsequently granted counsel's request to be relieved as Anticevic's counsel and ordered Anticevic to have a new attorney file a notice of appearance on her behalf by August 31, 2009, noting that in the event she failed to do so, the Court could enter a default judgment. After Anticevic failed to do so, the Court entered the default judgment.
For further information, see Litigation Release No. 19327 (August 5, 2005), Litigation Release No. 19340 (August 19, 2005), Litigation Release No. 19374 (September 14, 2005), Litigation Release No. 19775 (July 26, 2006), Litigation Release No. 19696 (May 11, 2006), Litigation Release No. 19650 (April 11, 2006), Litigation Release No. 19966 (January 12, 2007), Litigation Release No. 20607 (June 2, 2008), Litigation Release No. 20976 (March 27, 2009).