Closed Meeting on Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be: institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Commission Charges Weatherford International with FCPA Violations
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) today charged oilfield services company Weatherford International with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by authorizing bribes and improper travel and entertainment for foreign officials in the Middle East and Africa to win business, including kickbacks in Iraq to obtain United Nations Oil-for-Food contracts.
The SEC alleges that Weatherford and its subsidiaries falsified its books and records to conceal not only these illicit payments, but also commercial transactions with Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan that violated U.S. sanctions and export control laws. Weatherford failed to establish an effective system of internal accounting controls to monitor risks of improper payments and prevent or detect misconduct. The company reaped more than $59.3 million in profits from business obtained through improper payments, and more than $30 million in profits from its improper sales to sanctioned countries.
Swiss-based Weatherford, which has substantial operations in Houston, has agreed to pay more than $250 million to settle the SEC’s charges and parallel actions by the Department of Justice’s Fraud Section, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, and Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.
“The nonexistence of internal controls at Weatherford fostered an environment where employees across the globe engaged in bribery and failed to maintain accurate books and records,” said Andrew Ceresney, co-director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division. “They used code names like ‘Dubai across the water’ to conceal references to Iran in internal correspondence, placed key transaction documents in mislabeled binders, and created whatever bogus accounting and inventory records were necessary to hide illegal transactions.”
Kara N. Brockmeyer, chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit, added, “Whether the money went to tax auditors in Albania or officials at the state-owned oil company in Angola, bribes and improper payments were an accustomed way for Weatherford to conduct business. While the profits may have seemed bountiful at the time, the costs far outweigh the benefits in the end as coordinated law enforcement efforts have unraveled the widespread schemes and heavily sanctioned the misconduct.”
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Houston, the misconduct occurred from at least 2002 to 2011. In Angola, for example, Weatherford’s legal department permitted its subsidiary to use an agent who insisted that an FCPA clause be omitted from the consultancy agreement. The company took no steps to determine whether the agent was paying bribes to foreign officials, and the agent used sham work orders and invoices to pay bribes that ensured the renewal of a lucrative oil services contract for Weatherford in Angola. The same agent made illicit payments to obtain commercial contracts for Weatherford in Congo. The company also allowed its subsidiary to enter into a joint venture agreement with companies whose beneficial owners included Angolan oil company officials and a relative of an Angolan Minister in order to win business. A Weatherford employee reported in a 2006 ethics questionnaire that Weatherford personnel were making payments to government officials in Angola and elsewhere, but the company failed to investigate.
The SEC’s complaint also alleges that Weatherford failed to perform due diligence on a distributor suggested by an official at a national oil company in the Middle East. From 2005 to 2011, Weatherford and its subsidiaries awarded more than $11.8 million in improper “volume discounts” to the distributor – money intended for the creation of a slush fund to pay foreign officials.
According to the SEC’s complaint, the misconduct went beyond the use of agents or other third parties. Weatherford provided improper travel and entertainment to officials of a state-owned company in Algeria with no legitimate business purpose. For example, Weatherford paid for a 2006 FIFA World Cup trip by two of the officials, the July 2006 honeymoon of an official’s daughter, and an October 2005 religious trip to Saudi Arabia by an official and his family that was improperly recorded as a donation in Weatherford’s books and records. Weatherford’s Middle East subsidiary also made more than $1.4 million in improper payments to obtain nine contracts under the Oil-for-Food program in 2002. Iraqi ministries demanded improper “inland transportation fees” in an effort to subvert the UN program. Weatherford’s subsidiary complied with the Iraqi demands and paid more than $115,000 in fees despite invoices that included charges inconsistent with the actual deliveries. Weatherford obtained more than $7 million in profits from the misconduct.
The SEC further alleges that managers at Weatherford’s subsidiary in Italy flouted the lack of internal controls and misappropriated more than $200,000 in company funds, some of which was improperly paid to Albanian tax auditors. The managers misreported cash advances, diverted payments on previously paid invoices, misappropriated government rebate checks, and received reimbursement for such purchases as golf equipment and perfume that did not relate to business activities.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Weatherford employees created false accounting and inventory records from 2002 to 2007 to hide the illegal commercial sales to Cuba, Syria, Sudan, and Iran. During this time period, exporting or re-exporting goods or services from the U.S. to these sanctioned countries was prohibited. The falsified financial statements and books and records of Weatherford subsidiaries involved in the misconduct were consolidated into the financial statements of the parent company.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that Weatherford violated the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA, specifically Sections 30A, 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Weatherford agreed to pay $65,612,360.34 to the SEC in the global settlement, including a $1.875 million penalty assessed in part for lack of cooperation early in the investigation. Weatherford agreed to pay $87 million in criminal fines to the Department of Justice for the FCPA violations, and $100 million to the other three agencies for the sanctions violations. The company also must comply with certain undertakings, including the retention of an independent compliance monitor for 18 months and self-reporting to the SEC staff for an additional 18 months.
The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Tracy L. Price, Kelly G. Kilroy, and Stanley Cichinski of the FCPA Unit as well as Natalie Lentz and Robert Dodge. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Justice Department, Commerce Department, Treasury Department, and U.S. Attorney’s Office in Houston. (Press Rel. 2013-252; LR-22880)
Commission Announces Charges against Two Houston-Based Firms for Engaging in Thousands of Undisclosed Principal Transactions
The Commission today announced charges against two Houston-based investment advisory firms and three executives for engineering thousands of principal transactions through their affiliated brokerage firm without informing their clients.
One of the firms – along with its chief compliance officer – also is charged with violations of the “custody rule” that requires firms to meet certain standards when maintaining custody of client funds or securities.
In a principal transaction, an investment adviser acting for its own account or through an affiliated broker-dealer buys a security from a client account or sells a security to it. Principal transactions can pose potential conflicts between the interests of the adviser and the client, and therefore advisers are required to disclose in writing any financial interest or conflicted role when advising a client on the other side of the trade. They must also obtain the client’s consent.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that investment advisers Parallax Investments LLC and Tri-Star Advisors engaged in thousands of securities transactions with their clients on a principal basis through their affiliated brokerage firm without making the required disclosures to clients or obtaining their consent beforehand. Parallax’s owner John P. Bott II and Tri-Star Advisors CEO William T. Payne and president Jon C. Vaughan were collectively paid more than $2 million in connection with these trades.
“By failing to disclose principal transactions and obtain consent, Parallax and Tri-Star Advisors deprived their clients of knowing in advance that their advisers stood to benefit substantially by running the trades through an affiliated account,” said Marshall S. Sprung, co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.
According to the SEC’s orders instituting administrative proceedings, Bott initiated and executed at least 2,000 undisclosed principal transactions from 2009 to 2011 without the consent of Parallax clients. In each transaction, Parallax’s affiliated brokerage firm Tri-Star Financial used its inventory account to purchase mortgage-backed bonds for Parallax clients and then transferred the bonds to the applicable client accounts. Bott received nearly half of the $1.9 million in sales credits collected by Tri-Star Financial on these transactions.
According to the SEC’s orders, Payne and Vaughan initiated and executed more than 2,000 undisclosed principal transactions from 2009 to 2011 without the consent of Tri-Star Advisor clients. Tri-Star Financial similarly used its inventory account to purchase mortgage-backed bonds for Tri-Star Advisor clients and then transferred the bonds to the applicable client accounts. Payne and Vaughan together received nearly half of the $1.9 million in gross sales credits collected by the brokerage firm on these transactions.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division further alleges that Parallax failed to comply with the custody rule that requires firms to undergo certain procedures to safeguard and account for client assets. Parallax served as an adviser to a private fund Parallax Capital Partners LP. The custody rule required Parallax to either undergo an annual surprise exam to verify the existence of the fund’s assets, or obtain fund audits by a PCAOB-registered auditor and deliver the financial statements to investors within 120 days after the fiscal year ends. Although Parallax obtained an audit of PCP in 2010, it failed to retain a PCAOB-registered auditor and failed to deliver the financial statements on time.
According to the SEC’s orders, Parallax chief compliance officer F. Robert Falkenberg was aware of the 120-day deadline, but failed to take any steps to ensure that Parallax complied. Even after Falkenberg and Bott learned that the fund’s auditor was not registered with the PCAOB, they retained him to perform the 2010 audit and issue financial statements to investors.
According to the SEC’s orders, Parallax allegedly violated the principal transaction, custody, and compliance provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Bott allegedly aided, abetted, and caused the violations. Falkenberg allegedly aided, abetted, and caused Parallax’s custody and compliance violations. Tri-Star Advisors allegedly violated the principal transaction and compliance provisions of the Advisers Act, and Payne and Vaughan allegedly caused the violations.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by R. Joann Harris and Asset Management Unit member Barbara L. Gunn of the Fort Worth Regional Office. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Jennifer Brandt. (Press Rel. 2013-250)
Commission Announces Fraud Charges against Detroit-Based Money Market Fund Manager
The Commission today announced fraud charges against a Detroit-based investment advisory firm and a portfolio manager for deceiving the trustees of a money market fund and failing to comply with rules that limit risk in a money market fund’s portfolio.
Money market funds seek to maintain a stable share price by investing in highly safe securities. Under the federal securities laws, a money market fund may only invest in securities determined by the fund’s board of trustees to present minimal credit risk.
The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleges that Ambassador Capital Management and Derek Oglesby repeatedly made false statements to trustees of the Ambassador Money Market Fund about the credit risk in the securities they purchased for its portfolio. Trustees also were misled about the fund’s exposure to the Eurozone credit crisis of 2011 and the diversification of the fund’s portfolio.
“Money market fund managers must not hide the ball from a fund’s board,” said George S. Canellos, co-director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division. “Ambassador Capital Management and Oglesby weren’t truthful about whether securities in the portfolio threatened to destabilize the fund, and they failed to operate under the strict conditions designed for money market fund managers to limit risk exposure and maintain a stable price.”
The enforcement action stems from an ongoing analysis of money market fund data by the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, in this case a review of the gross yield of funds as a marker of risk. The performance of the Ambassador Money Market Fund was identified as consistently different from the rest of the market. Upon further examination by the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, the matter was referred to the Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit for investigation.
The Enforcement Division’s investigation found that Ambassador Capital Management and Oglesby misrepresented or withheld critical facts from the fund’s trustees:
According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, Ambassador Capital Management also caused the fund to deviate from the risk-limiting provisions of Rule 2a-7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The firm also failed to conduct an appropriate stress test of the fund’s portfolio. Since the Ambassador Money Market Fund failed to follow the risk-limiting provisions of Rule 2a-7, it was not permitted to use the amortized cost method of valuing securities under which it priced its securities at $1 per share. It also shouldn’t have been represented to investors as a money market fund.
“Compliance with the risk-limiting provisions is critically important for a money market fund. Deviations can have serious consequences for pricing of fund shares and how the fund markets itself to investors,” said Marshall S. Sprung, co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.
The SEC’s order alleges that Ambassador Capital Management violated the antifraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Oglesby aided and abetted the firm’s violations. They allegedly caused violations of the pricing, naming, and recordkeeping provisions of the Investment Company Act, and the firm caused violations of the compliance provision.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Amy Stahl Cotter and John J. Sikora Jr. of the Asset Management Unit in the Chicago Regional Office with assistance from Marita Bartolini of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Jonathan S. Polish, Robert Moye, and Timothy S. Leiman.
The Division of Investment Management's Risk and Examinations Office monitors trends in the asset management industry and utilizes the data to inform policy and evaluate potential rulemaking. The office interacts with registrants through an inspection and examination program. Its ongoing quantitative and qualitative analysis of the asset management industry played a vital role in this enforcement action. “This is an excellent example of how our investment in data analysis leads directly to investor protection,” said Norm Champ, director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management. “With a team of specialists who understand these products working alongside financial analysts, we can produce solid information for examination and enforcement use.” (Press Rel. 2013-251; IA- 3725)
Commission Charges Alabama Based Defendants with Securities Fraud and Reporting Violations
On November 22, 2013, the Commission filed an action in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia, charging Charles H. Merchant, Sr. (Merchant), an Anniston, Alabama resident, and his company Southern USA Resources, Inc. (Southern USA), a Delaware corporation based in Ashland, Alabama, with violations of the antifraud provisions and various reporting violation of the federal securities laws.
The complaint alleges that in 2012, Southern USA, a company purportedly focused on the exploitation of gold mining rights in Alabama, and Merchant, the company’s CEO, CFO, president, secretary, treasurer and director, filed materially false reports with the Commission that misrepresented the value of the company’s land. During 2012, Merchant also filed with the Commission certifications that contained false statements about the company’s internal controls and his understanding of those controls. Southern USA is currently delinquent with respect to its 2012 Form 10-K and its two most recent Forms 10-Q. Defendant Merchant has resigned his CEO and CFO positions with no successors named, and the company’s outside auditor also has resigned – none of which has been disclosed by Southern USA in a Form 8-K.
The complaint alleges that Merchant by virtue of his conduct, directly or indirectly, has engaged in and unless enjoined, will engage in violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14 and 13b2-1 thereunder. Further, Merchant also aided and abetted defendant Southern USA’s violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-15 thereunder; and is liable as a “control person” under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for defendant Southern USA’s violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-15 thereunder.
The complaint further alleges that Southern USA by virtue of its conduct, directly or indirectly, has engaged in and unless enjoined, will engage in violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-15 thereunder.
The Commission has also filed signed consents with the Court from the two defendants to proposed orders of permanent injunction and other ancillary relief. The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the Alabama Securities Commission in the investigation of this matter. [SEC v. Charles H. Merchant, Sr. and Southern USA Resources, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-3879-SCJ (N.D. Ga.)] (LR-22878)
Initial Decision in In the Matter of Heritage Worldwide, Inc.
An Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision on Default in Heritage Worldwide, Inc., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15596. The Initial Decision found that Heritage Worldwide, Inc., Impala Mineral Exploration Corp., Klondike Star Mineral Corporation, MIV Therapeutics Inc., Most Home Corp., Moventis Capital, Inc., and OrganiTECH USA, Inc., have securities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each failed to file required periodic reports, and that the evidence supported revocation of their registered securities as necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors. (ID-532)
James A. Philbrook Barred From the Securities Industry
James A. Philbrook (Philbrook) has been barred from the securities industry. The sanction was ordered in an administrative proceeding before an administrative law judge, following a November 2012 conviction of theft and securities violations under Maine state law. From on or about June 7, 2005, to on or about July 20, 2006, Philbrook obtained money from two individuals, misrepresenting to them that he intended to make investments on their behalf in a pay-per-view television event and a college-funding business venture. In fact, he did not invest their money and instead diverted their money for his own personal use. (ID-533)
Initial Decision in In the Matter of Frank Bluestein
An Administrative Law Judge has issued an Initial Decision in Frank Bluestein, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15317. On May 7, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings (OIP) against Frank Bluestein (Bluestein), pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The OIP alleges that a federal district court has enjoined Bluestein from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, in SEC v. Bluestein, 2:09-cv-13809 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 24, 2013).
The Initial Decision grants the Motion for Summary Disposition filed by the Division of Enforcement and permanently bars Bluestein from associating with a broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, and from participating in an offering of penny stock. (ID-534)
OFS Capital Corporation, et al.
An order has been issued on an application filed by OFS Capital Corporation (Company), et al. for an order under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Act) for an exemption from Sections 18(a) and 61(a) of the Act. The order permits the Company to adhere to a modified asset coverage requirement. (Rel. IC-30812 - November 26, 2013)
DBX ETF Trust, et al.
An order has been issued on an application filed by DBX ETF Trust, et al., to permit: (a) actively-managed series of certain open-end management investment companies to issue shares (Shares) redeemable in large aggregations only (Creation Units); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market prices; (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days from the tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series to acquire Shares; and (f) certain series to perform creations and redemptions of Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure. (Rel. IC-30811 - November 26, 2013)
Arrow Investment Advisors, LLC and Arrow Investments Trust
A notice has been issued giving interested persons until December 23, 2013, to request a hearing on an application filed by Arrow Investment Advisors, LLC and Arrow Investments Trust, for an order to permit: (a) series of certain open-end management investment companies that track the performance of an index provided by an affiliated person to issue shares (“Shares”) redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market prices; (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days from the tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series to acquire Shares. (Rel. IC-30813 - November 26, 2013)
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed a proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2013-21) under Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which became effective upon filing, to make technical changes to OCC’s By-Laws and Rules in connection with the modification of the individual registration categories of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of November 25th. (Rel. 34-70947)
A proposed rule change filed by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (SR-NASDAQ-2013-142) to modify a Level 2 subscriber fee has become immediately effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication of the proposal is expected to be made in the Federal Register during the week of November 25th. (Rel. 34-70945).
A proposed rule change filed by Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., to adopt a Match Trade Prevention Modifier for limit and market orders submitted to the Exchange (SR-CHX-2013-20) 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 November 25th. (Rel. 34-70948)
Notice of Proposed Rule Change
The National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) filed a proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSCC-2013-12) under Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide NSCC Members with a risk management tool that would enable Members to monitor trading activity and receive notifications when pre-set trading limits are reached. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of November 25th. (Rel 34-70946)
The following registration statements have been filed with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933. The reported information appears as follows: Form, Name, Address and Phone Number (if available) of the issuer of the security; Title and the number and/or face amount of the securities being offered; Name of the managing underwriter or depositor (if applicable); File number and date filed; Assigned Branch; and a designation if the statement is a New Issue.
Registration statements may be viewed in person in the Commission's Public Reference Branch at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. To obtain paper copies, please refer to information on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/answers/publicdocs.htm. In most cases, you can view and download this information by using the search function located at http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html.
S-1 PAR PETROLEUM CORP/CO, 800 GESSNER ROAD, SUITE 875, HOUSTON, TX, 77024, 7139693293 - 143,884,892 ($335,251,798.36) Equity, (File 333-192519 - Nov. 25) (BR. 04A) F-10 CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY CO, 935 DE LA GAUCHETIERE ST W, MONTREAL QUEBEC, CANADA, A8, H3B 2M9, 5143996569 - 0 ($2,872,000,000.00) Other, (File 333-192522 - Nov. 25) (BR. 05A) S-8 SUPERTEX INC, 1235 BORDEAUX DR, SUNNYVALE, CA, 94089, 4087440100 - 369,602 ($8,940,672.38) Equity, (File 333-192523 - Nov. 25) (BR. 10B) S-1 TAMINCO Corp, C/O APOLLO MANAGEMENT VII, L.P., 9 WEST 57TH STREET, 43RD FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY, 10019, 610-366-6744 - 0 ($242,075,000.00) Equity, (File 333-192524 - Nov. 25) (BR. 06B) S-8 GAMCO INVESTORS, INC. ET AL, ONE CORPORATE CENTER, 401 THEODORE FREMD AVENUE, RYE, NY, 10580, 9149213700 - 0 ($150,940,000.00) Equity, (File 333-192525 - Nov. 25) (BR. 12A) S-3ASR ADVANCE AUTO PARTS INC, 5008 AIRPORT RD, ROANOKE, VA, 24012, 5403624911 - 0 ($0.00) Debt, (File 333-192526 - Nov. 25) (BR. 02C) S-1 Globalstar, Inc., 300 HOLIDAY SQUARE BLVD.,, COVINGTON,, LA, 70433, 408-933-4000 - 0 ($14,500,000.00) Equity, (File 333-192527 - Nov. 25) (BR. 11C) S-8 BIOTIME INC, 1301 HARBOR BAY PARKWAY, ALAMEDA, CA, 94502, 5105213390 - 0 ($15,000,000.00) Equity, (File 333-192531 - Nov. 25) (BR. 01A) F-3 BITAUTO HOLDINGS LTD, NEW CENTURY HOTEL OFFICE TOWER 6/F, NO 6 SOUTH CAPITAL STADIUM ROAD BEIJING, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, F4, 100044, 86 10 6849-2345 - 0 ($100,000,000.00) ADRs/ADSs, (File 333-192532 - Nov. 25) (BR. 03A) S-3 AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES INC, 108 CHERRY HILL DRIVE, BEVERLY, MA, 01915, 978 232 4001 - 0 ($75,000,000.00) Unallocated (Universal) Shelf, (File 333-192533 - Nov. 25) (BR. 10A) S-3 Rubicon Technology, Inc., 9931 FRANKLIN AVENUE, FRANKLIN PARK, IL, 60131, (847) 295-7000 - 0 ($100,000,000.00) Unallocated (Universal) Shelf, (File 333-192536 - Nov. 25) (BR. 10B) S-8 TRIUMPH GROUP INC, 899 CASSATT ROAD, SUITE 210, BERWYN, PA, 19312, (610) 251-1000 - 4,000,000 ($285,600,000.00) Equity, (File 333-192537 - Nov. 25) (BR. 05C)
Form 8-K is used by companies to file current reports on the following events:
Form 8-K filings can be researched through several SEC EDGAR searches, some of which have item filtering functionality.