Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of Jan 23 to Jan 29

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Health Research Laboratories, Whole Body Supplements, Kramer Duhon
Violation: On January 28, 2021, Complaint Counsel filed a Motion to Strike, requesting that the Court strike the Reply filed on January 27, 2020. In the interests of judicial economy and to avoid delay and for the reasons stated below, the Court should deny the Motion to Strike… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC; ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC; IMPAX LABORATORIES, LLC; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Violation: Count I Agreement in Restraint of Trade Arising Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act Against All Defendants 119. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 118 above. 120… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: ERIK GANTZ; RANDY LANG,SEED CONSULTING, LLC; CREDIT NAVIGATOR, LLC
Violation: Although Seed’s employees often do not attend the trainings, Defendants know that the Training Companies routinely promote Seed’s services in an inaccurate manner… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Altria Group, Inc., JUUL Labs, Inc.
Violation: Respondents unrealistically speculate that a three-month delay will allow the Chief Administrative Law Judge to conduct an in-person evidentiary hearing and incorrectly argue that the FTC Act does not allow for evidentiary hearings to be conducted via videoconference… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: LEAD EXPRESS, INC., et al.,
Violation: Now, the FTC and the Corporate and Individual Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, have stipulated and agreed to entry of this Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgement (“Order”) to resolve all matters in dispute in this action between them… Read More

Penalties: $15,000.00
Respondent: Manish Shah
Violation: In July 2016, Shah borrowed $75,000 from a brokerage customer in violation of FINRA Rules 3240 and 2010. In addition, during the period September 2018 to March 2019, Shah acted unethically and violated FINRA Rule 2010 by circumventing the firm’s policies, providing false information to a client’s representative, and misleading 2 Northwestern during its internal investigation in connection with borrowing $200,000 from an insurance customer… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Tyler D. Delahunt
Violation: In connection with FINRA’s investigation regarding whether Delahunt had solicited clients in a private securities transaction without approval of Merrill Lynch and whether he had accepted loans or other funds from clients without notice to his firm, FINRA staff issued a request for information and documents pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210. Delahunt failed to respond in violation of FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $15,500.00
Respondent: Jasmit Singh
Violation: Between April 2018 and February 2020, Singh participated in private securities transactions and engaged in outside business activities without providing prior written notice to his firm, in violation of FINRA Rules 3270, 3280, and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $10,000.00
Respondent: Christopher R. McMorrow
Violation: Between December 2013 and February 2019, McMorrow failed to disclose to BestVest his involvement with an insurance and financial planning company as an outside business activity. During this same period, McMorrow also falsely attested on the firm’s 2013-2018 annual compliance questionnaires that he had disclosed all of his outside business activities. As a result, McMorrow violated FINRA Rules 3270 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $10,000.00
Respondent: Michael August Pellegrino
Violation: While associated with TCM, Pellegrino distributed a retail communication entitled “Short Term High Yield Contract” (the Ad) to approximately 80 retail investors, which promoted an investment in a “short-term, high yield contract” issued by a limited liability company located in Florida (the issuer) that contained misleading statements, improper projections of future performance, and omitted material information, in violation of FINRA Rules 2210(d) and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $175,000.00
Respondent: Citigroup Global Markets Inc
Violation: Between January 2013 and April 2020, Respondent failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs of protected quotations in NMS stocks. In addition, the firm failed to conduct regular surveillance to ascertain the effectiveness of its Rule 611 compliance program and to take prompt action to remedy any deficiencies… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: JEREMY SPENCE
Violation: Defendant violated 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a) by, among other things, in connection with swaps, contracts of sale of a commodity in interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, soliciting customers with false and misleading performance statements and promises of future performance; misrepresenting and omitting material facts in communications with customers regarding the use of customers’ funds; and misappropriating customers’ funds… Read More

Penalties: $400,000.00
Respondent: AG PROCESSING INC A COOPERATIVE,
Violation: On multiple occasions during the Relevant Period, AGP held a position in Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”) Soybean Meal futures contracts that exceeded the all-months speculative position limit for that contract set forth in Regulation 150.2, 17 C.F.R. § 150.2 (2019)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Ronald Shane Flynn, and Richard Marchitto & Vuuzle Media Corp
Violation: The SEC’s complaint alleges that between 2016 and 2020, Vuuzle and Flynn raised more than $14 million from individual investors using a boiler room of salespeople employing high-pressure tactics, based primarily in the Philippines… Read More

Penalties: $10,675,000.00
Respondent: Daniel Investment Associates, LLC and Gregory D. Van Wyk
Violation: This case involves the negligent failure of Daniel Investment Associates, LLC (“DIA”), a registered investment adviser based in Santa Barbara, California, and its principal, Gregory Daniel Van Wyk, to disclose material information regarding promissory notes issued by Essex Capital Corporation (“Essex Capital”) and its principal, Ralph Iannelli. On June 5, 2018, the Commission charged Essex Capital and Iannelli with conducting an $80 million offering fraud, and on December 21, 2018, Essex Capital was placed under a court-ordered receivership… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Green Bud Initiatives LLC
Violation: Between September 2017 and February 2019, the Johnsons and GBI Marketing acted as unregistered broker-dealers in soliciting prospective investors to invest in the unregistered securities offerings of Smart Initiatives, LLC “Smart Initiatives”), Valley View Enterprises LLC (“Valley View), Target Equity LLC (“Target Equity”), Zabala Farms Group LLC (“ZFG”), GPA Enterprises LLC (“GPA”) (the “Issuers).. Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Viktor Gjonaj
Violation: According to the SEC’s complaint, from at least mid-2016 to 2019, Gjonaj raised approximately $26.4 million through the fraudulent offer and sale of investment contracts to at least 24 investors, most of whom were members of the Albanian-American community in Detroit… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Peter Baker, et al.,
Violation: The SEC’s complaint charged Baker, Oharriz, Baker’s company Prestige Global Trading, LLC, and Oharriz’s companies, Diversified Consulting & Logistics, Inc. and Sienna Business Group, Inc., with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: ANTHONY TODD JOHNSON
Violation: The complaint alleges that the Johnsons and GBI Marketing raised approximately $20 million from over 300 investors in connection with the Issuers’s and C-Quadrant’s securities offerings. In doing so, the complaint alleged the Johnsons misled and deceived investors regarding their compensation and misappropriated at least $2.7 million of investor funds, contrary to representations regarding the use of proceeds in the Issuers’s private placement memoranda… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: KAREN McKINLEY
Violation: Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, compliance with the Commission’s order and payment of any or all of the following: (a) any disgorgement or civil penalties ordered by a Court against the Respondent in any action brought by the Commission; (b) any disgorgement amounts ordered against the Respondent for which the Commission waived payment; (c) any arbitration award related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; (d) any self-regulatory organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; and (e) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Revolutionary Concepts, Inc., et al
Violation: The SEC’s complaint, filed on April 27, 2018, alleges that Ali, while a Senior Vice President at Revolutionary Concepts, Inc. (REVO), arranged for REVO to enter into several sham transactions in which REVO would purportedly acquire valuable assets from companies that he portrayed in the press releases as independent. Ali then touted the sham transactions in press releases as being highly lucrative for REVO, while claiming that REVO acquired valuable assets from the deals… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Ivan Ramos
Violation: According to the SEC’s complaint, from approximately August 2017 to July 2020, Ramos, an insurance agent at a large, well-known insurance company, lured several of his clients and other acquaintances into investing approximately $1 million through a pair of firms, Invexperts, LLC and Wealth Seeds Capital, LLC… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Jeremy Johnson
Violation: Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, compliance with the Commission’s order and payment of any or all of the following: (a) any disgorgement or civil penalties ordered by a Court against the Respondent in any action brought by the Commission; (b) any disgorgement amounts ordered against the Respondent for which the Commission waived payment; (c) any arbitration award related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; (d) any self-regulatory organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; and (e) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order… Read More

Click here to see the full list of SEC Enforcement Documents