 |
Home | Previous Page | |
|
||
 |
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTSSecurities and Exchange Commission Suspends Trading in the Securities of Seven Issuers for Failure to Make Required Periodic FilingsThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension of trading in the securities of the following issuers, commencing at 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 28, 2010, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 12, 2010:
The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of these seven issuers due to a lack of current and accurate information about the companies because they have not filed periodic reports with the Commission in over two years. This order was entered pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The Commission cautions brokers, dealers, shareholders and prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available information and any information subsequently issued by these companies. Brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11, at the termination of the trading suspensions, no quotation may be entered relating to the securities of the subject companies unless and until the broker or dealer has strictly complied with all of the provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by the rule, it should refrain from entering quotations relating to the securities of these companies that have been subject to a trading suspension until such time as it has familiarized itself with the rule and is certain that all of its provisions have been met. Any broker or dealer with questions regarding the rule should contact the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC at (202) 551-5720. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of the rule, the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action. If any broker, dealer or other person has any information which may relate to this matter, they should immediately communicate it to the Delinquent Filings Branch of the Division of Enforcement at (202) 551-5466, or by e-mail at DelinquentFilings@sec.gov. (Rel. 34-62387) SEC Announces $13.9 Million Fair Fund Distribution to Harmed Investors in Raytheon Financial Fraud SettlementOn June 25, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced the distribution today of approximately $13.9 million to nearly 57,000 investors in connection with Raytheon Corporation financial fraud settlements. The Fair Fund was created after Raytheon agreed to pay approximately $12 million in penalties and disgorgement to settle SEC charges in 2006 that it defrauded investors by making false and misleading disclosures and using improper accounting practices. The proceeds from settlements with former Raytheon officers Daniel P. Burnham, Franklyn A. Caine, James E. Gray, Edward S. Pliner, and Aldo R. Servello, added additional funds to the Fair Fund. The Distribution Agent responsible for the Raytheon distribution is Epiq Systems. Investor questions regarding the distribution may be directed to Epiq Systems at 1 (866) 329-0166. Information regarding the distribution also can be obtained at http://www.raytheoncompanydistributionfund.com. For further information contact: Christopher R. Conte Timothy N. England (Press Rel. 2010-109) Statement on the Supreme Court's Decision in FEF v. PCAOBToday the Supreme Court issued its decision in Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and United States of America. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the restriction on removal of Board members under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 violates separation of powers principles, but found that the provision was severable from the remainder of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Court stated that the Act "remains fully operative as a law" with the for-cause restrictions excised, leaving the members of the PCAOB subject to removal by the Commission without restriction. The opinion does not call into question any action taken by the PCAOB since its inception. "I am pleased that the Court has determined that the Board's operations may continue and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, with the Board's tenure restrictions excised, remains fully in effect. The PCAOB is a cornerstone of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and serves a critical role in promoting investor protection and audit quality," said SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro. "We look forward to continuing to work with the Board in connection with its mission to oversee auditors in order to protect the interests of investors and further the public interest in the preparation of informative, accurate and independent audit reports." The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 established the PCAOB, and the Act provides the SEC with oversight authority over the PCAOB. "It is important to understand that the PCAOB's auditing standards, as approved by the Commission, continue to apply," said James L. Kroeker, the SEC's Chief Accountant. "Audit firms are required to be registered with the PCAOB and they remain subject to inspections." (Press Rel. 2010-111) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGSIn the Matter of Bruce S. Frank, Esq.On June 25, 2010, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Bruce S. Frank, Esq. The Order finds that on June 10, 2010 a Final Judgment was entered by consent against Frank, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bruce S. Frank, Civil Action Number 10-cv-04452, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Based on the above, the Order bars Bruce S. Frank from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney. Bruce S. Frank consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying the findings in the Order, except he admitted the entry of the injunction. (Rel. 34-62383; File No. 3-13949) Commission Orders Hearings on Registration Suspension or Revocation Against Nine Companies for Failure to Make Required Periodic FilingsIn conjunction with today's trading suspension, the Commission also instituted public administrative proceedings to determine whether to revoke or suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months the registration of each class of the securities of nine companies for failure to make required periodic filings with the Commission:
In this Order, the Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that the nine issuers are delinquent in their required periodic filings with the Commission. In this proceeding, instituted pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(j), a hearing will be scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing, the judge will hear evidence from the Division and the Respondents to determine whether the allegations of the Division contained in the Order, which the Division alleges constitute failures to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder, are true. The judge in the proceeding will then determine whether the registrations pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 of each class of the securities of these Respondents should be revoked or suspended for a period not exceeding twelve months. The Commission ordered that the Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding issue an initial decision not later than 120 days from the date of service of the order instituting proceedings. (Rel. 34-62388; File No. 3-13950 In the Matter of David D. HepworthOn June 28, 2010, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 203(f) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Section 9(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (Order) against David D. Hepworth (Hepworth). The Order finds that Hepworth, the former Chief Compliance Officer of Interfund Capital Corp. (Interfund), formerly a registered investment adviser located in Ketchum, Idaho, misappropriated approximately $650,000 from investors in a private fund that Interfund managed. According to the Order, Hepworth used the funds to pay personal and business expenses. The Order also finds that Hepworth aided and abetted and caused Interfund's failure to maintain proper custody of client funds and securities. Based on the above, the Order directs Hepworth to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-2 thereunder, bars Hepworth from association with any investment adviser, and prohibits him from serving or acting as an employee, officer, director, member of an advisory board, investment adviser or depositor of, or principal underwriter for, a registered investment company or affiliated person of such investment adviser, depositor, or principal underwriter. Hepworth consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying the findings in the Order. (Rel. 34-62390; Rel. IA-3042; IC-29334; File No. 3-13951) Court Enters Judgment of Permanent Injunction Against One or More Unknown Traders in the Common Stock of Certain Issuers (a/k/a Awe Trading, Inc. and Andrew Andersen) and Orders Them to Pay Disgorgement With Prejudgment InterestThe Commission announced that Oct. 2, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a default judgment of permanent injunction and other relief enjoining defendants One or More Unknown Traders in the Common Stock of Certain Issuers (a/k/a AWE Trading, Inc. and Andrew Andersen) (Defendants) from future violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Subsequently, on Dec. 29, 2009, the Court entered an Order finding the Defendants liable for disgorgement in the amount of $92,090.72, plus prejudgment interest of $6,156.37, for a total of $98,247.09. The Commission began this action by filing its complaint on April 7, 2008, against one or more unknown traders who carried out a sophisticated Internet scheme that stole the identities of unsuspecting individuals and netted more than $66,000 in illicit profits in just seven weeks. The complaint alleges that the Defendants conducted their entire online account intrusion scheme over the Internet and concealed their identities by, among other things, fraudulently opening brokerage accounts in the names of individuals who responded to a job advertisement on the website Craigslist. [SEC v. One or More Unknown Traders in the Common Stock of Certain Issuers (a/k/a AWE Trading, Inc. and Andrew Andersen), Case No. 08-CV-1402 (KAM) (JMA) (E.D.N.Y.)] (LR-21572) Court Enters Final Judgments Imposing Civil Penalties Against Defendants John R. Hedges and Basil J. MeechamThe Commission announced that on Dec. 17, 2009, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered Final Judgments ordering Defendants John R. Hedges and Basil J. Meecham to pay civil penalties of $130,000 each. On Dec. 9, 2009, the Court also entered an order dismissing the Commission's claim for civil penalty against Defendant Richard B. Powell. The Court had previously entered judgments of permanent injunction and other relief, by consent, against Hedges, Meecham and Powell. The Commission commenced this action by filing its complaint on April 16, 2008, against the Defendants. The complaint alleged that the company through its principals issued several false and misleading press releases claiming that the Food and Drug Administration had approved its Labguard diagnostic testing device, it had received an order for several thousand units of the Labguard device, and it had pending patents and trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. [SEC v. Southwestern Medical Solutions, Inc., John R. Hedges, Richard R. Powell, and Basil J. Meecham, Civil Action No. 8:08-cv-731-T26TBM (M.D. Fla.)] (LR-21573) Final Judgments of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Entered Against Defendants Bruce B. Blatman and North American Clearing, Inc.The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on Nov. 13, 2009, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered Final Judgments of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief against Defendants North American Clearing, Inc. and Bruce B. Blatman. The Final Judgments, entered by consent, enjoin North American and Blatman from violating and/or aiding and abetting violations of Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b), 15(c)(3) and Rules 10b-5 and 15c3-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Final Judgment against Blatman also orders him to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $25,000. The Commission commenced this action by filing its complaint on May 27, 2008, against North American Clearing, Inc., its founder and director Richard L. Goble, its president Blatman and its former financial and operations principal Timothy Ward. The Commission's complaint alleged the defendants engaged in illegal activities, including the misuse of customer funds to hide North American Clearing's financial problems and to pay for its daily business operations in violation of the antifraud and other provisions of the securities laws. [SEC v. North American Clearing, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 06-08-cv-829-Orl-35KRS (M.D. Fla.) (LR-21574) Court Enters Judgment of Permanent Injunction Against Defendant Ricardo H. GoldmanThe Commission announced that on Jan. 20, 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a Final Judgment Setting Disgorgement and Imposing a Civil Penalty against Defendant Ricardo H. Goldman. The Final Judgment orders Goldman to pay disgorgement in the amount of $260,360, prejudgment interest of $104,849 and imposes a civil penalty of $130,000. The Court had previously entered a Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief, by consent, against Goldman. The Commission began this action by filing its complaint against Goldman on Sept. 25, 2008, alleging he fraudulently operated an unregistered day trading brokerage firm through his company, E Trade Fund LLC. The complaint further alleged, among other things, that Goldman solicited traders, primarily from the Hispanic community, to invest approximately $2.1 million in the day trading operation. Goldman provided securities day trading capability to E Trade Fund's more than 110 traders and permitted them to day trade securities in E Trade Fund's own brokerage account at a registered broker-dealer through sub-accounts Goldman created for each trader. E Trade Fund is not affiliated with E*TRADE Financial Corporation, the broker-dealer that is registered with the Commission. [SEC v. Ricardo H. Goldman, Case No. 08-22666-CIV-LENARD/GARBER (S.D. Fla.)] (LR-21575) SEC Charges Portfolio Manager With Mismanagement of CDOsOn June 25, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charging Aamer Abdullah, formerly a portfolio manager at the New York-based investment advisory firm, ICP Asset Management, LLC, with mismanagement of several multi-billion-dollar collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), including knowingly causing CDOs under ICP's management to purchase securities at above-market prices. The SEC's complaint alleges that Abdullah violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The complaint further alleges that Abdullah aided and abetted violations of Sections 10(b) and 15(c)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-3 and 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC's complaint seeks a final judgment permanently enjoining Abdullah from future violations of the federal securities laws and ordering him to pay civil penalties and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest. Abdullah has consented to the entry of a partial judgment enjoining him from future violations of the securities laws, and has agreed to be barred from association with any broker, dealer, or investment adviser, without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint. Under the terms of the partial judgment, which is subject to the approval of the Court, any monetary relief against Abdullah will be determined at a later date by the Court upon motion by the Commission. [SEC v. Aamer Abdullah, Civil Action No. 10-CV-4957 (S.D.N.Y.)] (LR-21576) Court Enters Permanent Injunction and Penny Stock Bar Against Robert J. Chapman in Market Manipulation CaseThe Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that, on June 18, 2010, the Honorable Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a default judgment imposing a permanent injunction against future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and other relief, including a bar against participating in offerings of penny stocks, against Robert J. Chapman. This judgment resolves the Commission's claims and grants all relief sought against Chapman (except for the determination of monetary relief) in a civil action filed on Dec. 19, 2007. With regard to the monetary relief, the judgment orders Chapman to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties in amounts to be determined by the Court. In its Complaint, the Commission had alleged that Chapman had participated in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the stock price of Sedona Software Solutions, Inc. (Sedona), whose shares traded on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board. The Commission's Complaint alleged, in pertinent part, that during 2002 and 2003, defendant Chapman, together with certain co-defendants, engaged in a scheme to manipulate the price of Sedona, which had no assets or revenues, through distribution of analysts reports that fraudulently led investors to believe that Sedona had merged with a mining entity that owned operating gold mines. The Complaint alleges that Chapman prepared one of the reports that subsequently were distributed to investors by a promoter involved in the scheme. The judgment (i) permanently enjoins Chapman from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 (general antifraud provision); (ii) permanently bars him from participating in any future offerings of penny stocks, and (iii) orders Chapman to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties in amounts to be determined by the Court. [SEC v. Brian N. Lines, et al., Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-11387 (S.D.N.Y.)] (LR-21577) SEC Charges Technip with Foreign Bribery and Related Accounting Violations — Technip to Pay $98 Million in Disgorgement and Prejudgment Interest; Company Also to Pay a Criminal Penalty of $240 MillionThe Securities and Exchange Commission today announced a settlement with Technip for multiple violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The SEC alleged that Technip, a global engineering, construction and services company based in Paris, France, was part of a four-company joint venture that bribed Nigerian government officials over a 10-year period in order to win construction contracts in Nigeria worth more than $6 billion. The SEC also charged that Technip engaged in books and records and internal controls violations related to the bribery. As part of the settlement, Technip will pay $98 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. The company will also pay an additional $240 million penalty in separate criminal proceedings announced today by the U.S. Department of Justice. Previously, one of Technip's joint venture partners, KBR, Inc., and its former parent Halliburton Co., settled to similar charges. Together with Technip's payment, the combined sanctions of $917 million represent the largest combined settlements ever paid to date to the U.S. resulting from an FCPA violation. Technip's American Depository Shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange from August 2001 to November 2007. According to the SEC's complaint, between at least 1995 and 2004, senior executives at Technip and other members of TSKJ, a four-company joint venture that includes KBR, Inc., devised and implemented a scheme to bribe Nigerian government officials to obtain multi-billion dollar contracts to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) production facilities. The complaint alleges that from the inception of the joint venture, Technip and the other joint venture partners paid bribes to assist in obtaining the LNG contracts. The joint venture partners formed a "cultural committee," comprised of senior sales executives at each company, to consider how to carry out the bribery scheme. To conceal the illicit payments, the joint venture entered into sham contracts with a shell company controlled by a U.K. solicitor and a Japanese trading company as conduits for the bribes. Total payments to the two agents exceeded $180 million. The SEC's complaint also alleges that Technip's internal controls failed to detect or prevent the bribery, and that the company's records were falsified as a result of the bribery scheme. After Technip became a U.S. issuer in August 2001, it became subject to the FCPA, including the FCPA's prohibitions on the payment of anything of value to foreign government officials in order to obtain or retain business. The complaint alleges that although Technip was aware of these prohibitions, it did not implement adequate controls to ensure compliance with the FCPA. Instead, its due diligence was a "perfunctory exercise" conducted so that Technip would have some documentation in its files. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Technip has consented to the entry of a court order permanently enjoining it from violating Sections 30A, 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and ordering Technip to disgorge $98 million in ill-gotten profits derived from the scheme and prejudgment interest. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. In the related criminal proceeding announced today, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a criminal action against Technip, charging one count of conspiring to violate the FCPA and one count of violating the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA. Technip has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ and agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $240 million. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice, Fraud Section; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and foreign authorities in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. The SEC's investigation is continuing. [SEC v. Technip, Case No. 4:10-cv-02289, S.D. Tex. (Houston)] (LR-21578; AAE Rel. 3147) SEC v. Daniel Spitzer et al.The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced fraud charges and an emergency asset freeze against a purported fund manager based in the Virgin Islands who perpetrated a $105 million Ponzi scheme against investors. The SEC alleges that Daniel Spitzer, a resident of St. Thomas, used several entities and sales agents to misrepresent to investors that their money would be invested in investment funds that, in turn, would be invested primarily in foreign currency. Investors were falsely told that Spitzer's funds had never lost money and historically produced profitable annual returns that one year reached over 180 percent. Spitzer instead used money raised from new investors to pay earlier investors, and misappropriated investor funds to pay unrelated business expenses. He concealed his scheme by issuing phony documents to investors that led them to believe their investments were profiting. The SEC has obtained an emergency court order freezing the assets of Spitzer and his companies. According to the SEC's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Spitzer conducted his fraudulent scheme, which involved 400 investors, from at least 2004 to present. He only invested approximately $30 million of the more than $105 million he raised from investors. Of that amount, Spitzer used approximately $13.5 million to invest through an offshore entity via a bank account in the Netherlands Antilles. These investments, some of which were placed in a French financial institution, lost money and were subsequently liquidated. Spitzer used another $16 million to invest in money market funds that earned only a few thousand dollars. Spitzer liquidated these investments as well. After the investments were liquidated, the money was returned to Spitzer, and he used it to repay investors in Ponzi-like fashion. To cover up his scheme, Spitzer issued to his investors false Schedule K-1s that showed inflated returns and led them to believe that their investments were profitable. The SEC's complaint alleges that Spitzer used offshore bank accounts to pay purported business expenses of his companies. Spitzer deposited investor funds into bank accounts at the National Bank of Anguilla and the First Bank of Puerto Rico, from which he paid more than $15 million in purported operating expenses and payments to himself and various sales agents. Spitzer also used more than $4.8 million to pay third-party business expenses. The SEC further alleges that Spitzer led an extravagant lifestyle and spent more than $900,000 at a Las Vegas casino. According to the SEC's complaint, Spitzer's scheme is on the verge of collapse as he has attempted to delay and avoid paying investor redemptions. As recently as March 2010, Spitzer obtained $100,000 from an investor for an investment in one of his purportedly more conservative investment funds. Rather than invest the money, Spitzer used a portion of the money in April 2010 to pay other investors and third-party expenses. At the SEC's request for emergency relief for investors, the Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an order freezing all assets of Spitzer and his companies. Among other things, the court order requires that the defendants repatriate to the U.S. all assets located overseas. The SEC's complaint charges Spitzer and the defendant entities with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint also charges Spitzer and two of the asset management companies with violations of Section 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The complaint also seeks a court order of permanent injunction against Spitzer and each of the defendant entities, as well as an order of disgorgement including prejudgment interest. The complaint also seeks financial penalties against Spitzer and five of the asset management companies. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Irish Financial Regulator, Danish Financial Supervisory Authority, Autorité des marches financier in France, the Ontario Securities Commission and the Financial Intelligence and Investigations Unit Attached to the Royal Anguilla Police Force in Anguilla. The SEC's investigation is continuing. Investors with questions or information about this matter may call the SEC's Chicago Regional Office's telephone line dedicated to the case at (312) 353-0626. [SEC v. Daniel Spitzer, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-03758 (N.D. Ill.) (Leinenweber, J.)] (LR-21579) INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT RELEASESOrders Of Deregistration Under the Investment Company ActOrders have been issued under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act declaring that each of the following has ceased to be an investment company:
(Rel. IC-29290) SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATIONSProposed Rule ChangesNYSE Arca filed a proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2010-48) amending Rule 6.76A to eliminate the guaranteed allocation for Lead Market Makers and Directed Order Market Makers under certain circumstances pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62328) NYSE Arca filed a proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2010-58), as modified by Amendment No. 1, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to clearly erroneous executions. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62335) The Commission issued notice of filing of a proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2010-57) submitted by NYSE Arca pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, regarding listing and trading shares of AdvisorShares WCM/BNY Mellon Focused Growth ADR ETF. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62344) NYSE Arca filed a proposed rule change under Rule 19b-4 (SR-NYSEArca-2010-51) relating to listing and trading of WisdomTree Dreyfus Commodity Currency Fund under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62349) The Commission issued notice of filing of a proposed rule change and Amendment No. 1 thereto submitted by NYSE Arca (SR-NYSEArca-2010-49) pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding listing and trading of the WisdomTree Emerging Markets Local Debt Fund. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62350) Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule ChangesThe Commission issued notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2010-45) filed by NYSE Arca pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 amending Rule 2.4. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62343) A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Arca adopting Rule 0 to provide that certain references in Exchange Rules should be understood to also include FINRA, as applicable (SR-NYSEArca-2010-54), has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62352) A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Arca adopting NYSE Arca Equities Rule 0 to provide that certain references in Exchange Rules should be understood to also include FINRA, as applicable (SR-NYSEArca-2010-53), has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62353) A proposed rule change filed by the National Stock Exchange (SR-NSX-2010-06) to implement an Equity Rights Program has become effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62358) A proposed rule change (SR-BX-2010-041) filed by NASDAQ OMX BX extending the effective date of the rule governing the Exchange's directed order process on the Boston Options Exchange has become effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62366) A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Arca (SR-NYSEArca-2010-59) to expand and permanently establish its Short Term Option Program has become effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62369) A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Amex (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-62) to expand and permanently establish its Short Term Option Program has become effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of June 28. (Rel. 34-62370) SECURITIES ACT REGISTRATIONSRECENT 8K FILINGS
http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/2010/dig062810.htm
|