Federal Regulatory Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal regulatory agencies ranging from the Securities Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Featured Stories
SEC Issues Order Involving Jeffrey M. Mattich
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order instituting administrative proceedings(3-19001) involving Jeffrey M. Mattich:
In the Matter of
JEFFREY M. MATTICH,
Respondent.
ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 102(e) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF PRACTICE, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS
I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Jeffrey M. Mattich ("Respondent"
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order instituting administrative proceedings(3-19001) involving Jeffrey M. Mattich:
In the Matter of
JEFFREY M. MATTICH,
Respondent.
ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 102(e) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF PRACTICE, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS
I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Jeffrey M. Mattich ("Respondent"or "Mattich") pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3)(i)of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
II.
In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the "Offer") which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission's jurisdiction over him and the subject matter of these proceedings, and the findings contained in Section III.3 and III.5below, which are admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions ("Order"), as set forth below.
To view the pdf click here:https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2019/34-85159.pdf
SEC Files Charges in Elaborate Microcap Stock Fraud
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joshua Sason, et al., No. 19-cv-1459 (S.D.N.Y. filed February 15, 2019)
* * *
Washington, D.C., February 15, 2019 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against four individuals and related businesses for their roles in two microcap frauds and unlawful securities offerings. In sum, the alleged illegal transactions resulted in proceeds of more than $25 million.
According to the SEC's complaint, from approximately December
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joshua Sason, et al., No. 19-cv-1459 (S.D.N.Y. filed February 15, 2019)
* * *
Washington, D.C., February 15, 2019 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against four individuals and related businesses for their roles in two microcap frauds and unlawful securities offerings. In sum, the alleged illegal transactions resulted in proceeds of more than $25 million.
According to the SEC's complaint, from approximately December2012 to June 2013, microcap stock financier Magna Group, which was founded and owned by Joshua Sason, engaged in a scheme to acquire fake convertible promissory notes supposedly issued by penny stock issuer Lustros Inc. and then to convert those notes into shares of Lustros common stock. The defendants then sold the shares to unsuspecting retail investors, who did not know that the shares were fraudulently acquired and were being sold illegally. The defendants' sales of the Lustros shares also had the effect of destroying the value of the Lustros shares held by the public. The complaint alleges that Marc Manuel, Magna Group's former head of research and due diligence, personally negotiated and executed the sham transactions.
The complaint also alleges that in November 2013, Magna Equities II, which was also wholly-owned by Sason, and Manuel, purchased another fake promissory note from Pallas Holdings. Magna Equities II and the note's issuer, NewLead Holdings, Ltd., later agreed to retire the fake debt in exchange for shares of the issuer through a court-approved settlement agreement. To obtain approval of the settlement, Sason and Magna Equities II falsely swore to the court that the fake promissory note was a bona fide debt of NewLead. Kautilya "Tony" Sharma and Perian Salviola, who controlled Pallas Holdings, are alleged to also have participated in the scheme.
The Commission's complaint alleges that Sason violated Sections 5 and 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder, and that he is liable as a control person for the violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by Magna Group, Magna Equities II, and a third entity alleged to have been involved in the NewLead scheme, MG Partners, Ltd. ("MGP") (collectively, the "Magna Entities"). The complaint alleges that Manuel violated Sections 5 and 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, and that he is liable for aiding and abetting the violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by Sason and the Magna Entities. The complaint alleges that Magna Group violated Sections 5 and 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. The complaint alleges that Magna Equities II violated Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint alleges that MGP Group violated Sections 5 and 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. Finally, the complaint alleges that Sharma, Salviola, and Pallas Holdings each violated Sections 5 and 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, and that each aided and abetted the violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by Sason, Manuel, and the Magna Entities. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, a civil money penalty, penny stock bars, and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Lee A. Greenwood, Philip A. Fortino, John O. Enright, Christopher Ferrante, Diego Brucculeri, and Sheldon L. Pollock of the New York office. The SEC's litigation will be handled by Messrs. Fortino, Greenwood, Enright, and Alexander M. Vasilescu. The case is being supervised by Sanjay Wadhwa.
Rosenworcel Statement, FCC Takes Next Step Toward Further Rural Broadband Expansion
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel:
* * *
Re: Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90
* * *
"We have broadband deserts in this country. We have places where networks do not reach and where digital opportunity is hard to find. Many of these locations are rural. But not all. The realities of redlining and harsh economics of service have put some populated places out of reach, too.
"The unfortunate truth is that the Federal Communications Commission does not know with precision where these broadband
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel:
* * *
Re: Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90
* * *
"We have broadband deserts in this country. We have places where networks do not reach and where digital opportunity is hard to find. Many of these locations are rural. But not all. The realities of redlining and harsh economics of service have put some populated places out of reach, too.
"The unfortunate truth is that the Federal Communications Commission does not know with precision where these broadbanddeserts are, who is affected, and how well our policies work to bring connectivity to communities that have been left behind. Our broadband maps are woefully inadequate. They overstate coverage in too many areas and understate it in others. Fixing this problem is not for the faint of heart. But we will never manage the problems we do not measure. So I think this agency needs to repair our maps and improve the data we use to make decisions.
"This is not the subject of our effort today. But it hovers in the background. Because here we transition universal service funds available for broadband support from existing providers to new winners in the Connect America Fund auction. In practice, we kick off a process that will result in awarding nearly $1.5 billion over 10 years for broadband efforts in over 700,000 locations. The details are complex, but to the credit of the Wireline Competition Bureau, they are thoughtfully presented. So I support this decision today.
"However, going forward we have a challenge. We cannot hand out these billions and just wait for broadband deserts to miraculously support digital life. We need to check. In other words, we need to audit where these dollars go, what commitments were made, and where deployment takes place. We need to map what was spent and where service resulted.
"There are too many communities across this country thirsty for better broadband. I am hopeful that with tools like the one we use here, we can address these broadband deserts. But we need to be mindful that we will only do so effectively if we have accurate data that informs our work. And on that score, we have work to do."
Rosenworcel Statement, FCC Eliminates EEO Broadcaster Mid-Term Filing Requirement
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel:
* * *
- Re: Elimination of Obligation to File Broadcast Mid-Term Report (Form 397) Under Section 73.2080(f)(2) (MB Docket No. 18-23); Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, (MB Docket No. 17-105)
* * *
"For decades, at the direction of Congress, the Federal Communications Commission has been responsible for policies that prohibit discrimination in hiring at broadcast stations. On the surface, today's decision is just about Form 397, known as the Broadcast Mid-Term
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel:
* * *
- Re: Elimination of Obligation to File Broadcast Mid-Term Report (Form 397) Under Section 73.2080(f)(2) (MB Docket No. 18-23); Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, (MB Docket No. 17-105)
* * *
"For decades, at the direction of Congress, the Federal Communications Commission has been responsible for policies that prohibit discrimination in hiring at broadcast stations. On the surface, today's decision is just about Form 397, known as the Broadcast Mid-TermReport. This report has been used for the review of station compliance with equal employment opportunity policies at the mid-point of a station's license cycle. However, the bulk of the information gathered on this form is already available in the public file. As a result, today the agency determines that with these facts available elsewhere, it will modernize our process and eliminate Form 397.
"However, context matters. During the past two years the FCC has issued more than a dozen rulemakings to modernize its media policies. It has issued ten orders doing the same. As for efforts to modernize diversity policies--well, we're told to wait. Now I think good things come to those who wait. And I think patience is a virtue. But I think we've waited long enough.
"Under the Communications Act, this agency has a duty to develop policies to support the diversity of broadcast ownership. To this end, it has a responsibility to develop rules to support the review of the equal employment opportunity practices of broadcast licensees. A proceeding to address data related to this effort has been kicking around these halls for a decade and a half. Recognizing this fact, in the rulemaking that led up to today's decision regarding Form 397, my former colleague and I asked for it to seek comment on compliance and enforcement of the agency's equal employment opportunity obligations. Simple enough.
"But today's decision takes a pass. We are told this is not the right time to address these matters. Only at my request--along with that of my current colleague Commissioner Starks--do we have a promise to do this another day. Down the road. In yet another rulemaking, three months hence.
"I'm an optimist. But I'm also impatient. So while I appreciate the practical decision to eliminate Form 397, I am disappointed that we put the broader effort to address discriminatory practices related to media ownership off for the future. Because media ownership matters. What we see and hear says so much about who we are as individuals, as a community, and as a nation. And I want this agency's policies to reflect our diversity--and our obligations under the law.
"For these reasons, I choose to concur."
FTC Announces Annual Update of Size of Transaction Thresholds for Premerger Notification Filings and Interlocking Directorates
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
For 2019, the size-of-transaction threshold for reporting proposed mergers and acquisitions under Section 7A of the Clayton Act will adjust from $84.4 million to $90 million. Also, the 2019 thresholds under Section 8 of the Act that trigger prohibitions on certain interlocking memberships on corporate boards of directors are $36,564,000 for Section 8(a)(l ) and $3,656,400 for Section 8(a)(2)(A).
The FTC revises the thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The revised thresholds under
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
For 2019, the size-of-transaction threshold for reporting proposed mergers and acquisitions under Section 7A of the Clayton Act will adjust from $84.4 million to $90 million. Also, the 2019 thresholds under Section 8 of the Act that trigger prohibitions on certain interlocking memberships on corporate boards of directors are $36,564,000 for Section 8(a)(l ) and $3,656,400 for Section 8(a)(2)(A).
The FTC revises the thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The revised thresholds underSection 7A of the Clayton Act will apply to all transactions that close on or after the effective date of the notice, which is 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The thresholds for Section 8 of the Clayton Act become effective upon publication in the Federal Register. A complete listing of current thresholds can be found on the FTC's website, and will be updated once the revised thresholds are published in the Federal Register. The announcement of this year's revised thresholds was delayed due to the recent federal government shutdown.
The votes to approve the Federal Register notices announcing the threshold revisions were both 5-0. (FTC File No. P859910; the staff contact for Section 7A is Nora Whitehead, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3262; the staff contact for Section 8 is James Mongoven, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2879.)
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf). You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers or file an antitrust complaint (https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation). Like the FTC on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission), follow us on Twitter (https://twitter.com/FTC), read our blogs (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters), and subscribe to press releases (https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected) for the latest FTC news and resources.
FCC Enforcement Bureau Issues Advisory on Electronic Device Retailers
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Enforcement Bureau issued the text of the enforcement advisory (No. 2019-01):
The Enforcement Bureau (EB) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) issues this Advisory to remind any entity marketing radio frequency (RF) devices (marketers) that the devices may be subject to new compliance requirements provided in the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) procedures. Before being marketed in the United States, devices subject to the SDoC procedures must be properly authorized, labeled, and furnished with the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Enforcement Bureau issued the text of the enforcement advisory (No. 2019-01):
The Enforcement Bureau (EB) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) issues this Advisory to remind any entity marketing radio frequency (RF) devices (marketers) that the devices may be subject to new compliance requirements provided in the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) procedures. Before being marketed in the United States, devices subject to the SDoC procedures must be properly authorized, labeled, and furnished with theproper user information disclosures. Failure to comply may subject the violator to substantial monetary penalties that could total more than $150,000 per violation.
What Types of Electronic Devices Are Subject to the SDoC Procedures?
In general, a device subject to SDoC is one that does not purposely transmit an RF signal for communications purposes, i.e., it does not send voice and/or data to a wireless receiver. This category includes a broad range of consumer and commercial devices such as computer peripherals, light-emitting diode (LED) signs, ultrasonic humidifiers, and microwave ovens. Most devices subject to SDoC are described in Sections 15.101(a) and 18.203 of the Commission's rules. We caution that these provisions do not contain an exhaustive list of all devices subject to SDoC, and marketers should conduct due diligence research of the FCC's rules to assure themselves that any RF devices they market to U.S. consumers comply with those rules.
Who Needs to Know the Commission's SDoC Procedures?
Any entity that markets an RF device--including manufacturers, importers, and retailers--should know the Commission's rules to assure itself that each device in its inventory or catalog has been properly authorized. The term "marketing" is broadly defined in the FCC's rules and includes importation, advertising, selling, or leasing. For devices subject to SDoC, the responsible party for compliance is defined in Section 2.909(b) of the FCC's rules. This party must be located in the United States.
What Should You Do?
With limited exceptions, before any RF device is marketed in the United States, it must be properly authorized under the SDoC or, alternatively, under the Certification procedures. Marketers should ensure that each device in their inventory or catalog has been authorized by obtaining proof of compliance. Additionally, at the time of marketing (e.g., when the device is advertised, imported, or sold), marketers must include a compliance statement with any device subject to SDoC. The statement must include any required compliance language and be included in the user's manual or as a separate sheet.
FCC compliance requirements include:
1) Testing of each unique device to determine compliance with the applicable FCC technical rules;
2) Ensuring that, when marketed, each unit also complies with all applicable labeling and other administrative requirements;
3) Retaining all required records that demonstrate compliance with the applicable rules for each device, such as a test report and a copy of the compliance statement; and
4) Ensuring that the party responsible for device compliance with the Commission's rules is located in the United States.
What Happens If RF Equipment Does Not Comply with the FCC's Rules?
Any entity or person that markets noncompliant RF devices may be subject to the penalties authorized by the Communications Act, including, but not limited to, substantial monetary fines (currently up to $20,134 per day for marketing violations and up to $151,005 for an ongoing violation). Need more information?
For questions regarding the information in this Advisory, email EB-SED-Response@fcc.gov. For additional information regarding equipment authorizations, please visit the FCC website at https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/laboratory-division/general/equipment-authorization, or review OET's Knowledge Database publications at https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/index.cfm. Media inquiries should be directed to Will Wiquist at (202) 418-0509 or will.wiquist@fcc.gov.
To file a complaint, visit https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov or call 1-888-CALL-FCC.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). You may also contact the Enforcement Bureau on its TTY line at (202) 418-1148 for further information about this Enforcement Advisory, or the FCC on its TTY line at 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322).
FCC Commissioner Pai Issues Statement on Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Ajit Pai:
* * *
- Re: Elimination of Obligation to File Broadcast Mid-Term Report (Form 397) Under Section 73.2080(f)(2) (MB Docket No. 18-23); Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, (MB Docket No. 17-105)
* * *
"The British cartoonist Fran Orford published a cartoon with a drawing of a man and a woman with a big stack of papers between them. The caption read: "The idea that bureaucracy is on the increase is RIDICULOUS . . . and I have the reports to prove it!"
"For the last two years,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Chairman Ajit Pai:
* * *
- Re: Elimination of Obligation to File Broadcast Mid-Term Report (Form 397) Under Section 73.2080(f)(2) (MB Docket No. 18-23); Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, (MB Docket No. 17-105)
* * *
"The British cartoonist Fran Orford published a cartoon with a drawing of a man and a woman with a big stack of papers between them. The caption read: "The idea that bureaucracy is on the increase is RIDICULOUS . . . and I have the reports to prove it!"
"For the last two years,one of our goals at the FCC has been to get rid of unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. That's why today, we are eliminating the Broadcast Mid-Term Report, otherwise known as Form 397. At one time, this form served a useful purpose: It required certain broadcast television and radio stations to provide equal employment opportunity (EEO) information around the midpoint of their eight-year license terms to assist the FCC in determining which stations would be subject to a mid-term review. But today, the FCC can easily access nearly all of this information online in each station's public inspection file. And following adoption of this Order, we will be modifying our online public inspection file so that all of this information will be easily accessible. Ending this redundant reporting requirement is such a common-sense step that literally nobody in our record--not a single commenter--has opposed it.
"Importantly, this decision will have no impact on the Commission's ability to enforce our EEO rules. Indeed, we recently made clear our commitment on this score by voting to move staff handling EEO enforcement from the Media Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau, where they will be better equipped to take action when our rules are violated.
"This Order would not have been possible without the work of Steve Broeckaert, Michelle Carey, Lyle Elder, Martha Heller, Tom Horan, Jonathan Mark, and Holly Saurer from the Media Bureau, and Susan Aaron, Dave Konczal, and Royce Sherlock from the Office of General Counsel. I thank them for all their efforts to update our media rules for the digital age."
