Post by imSINGLEruRICH on Jul 25, 2010 0:28:23 GMT -5
tcoop
Junior Miner
Re: gossip July 23-24, 2010
« Reply #17 Today at 8:47pm »
Allegation of Preferential Treatment of
a Former SEC Attorney (Report No.
OIG-528)
The OIG opened an inquiry on November
18, 2008, after receiving an investor complaint
alleging that over 50,000 investors of a
publicly-traded company had been defrauded
by the company, suffering losses of $250 million.
The complainant also questioned why
SEC officials had failed to name the company’s
former outside counsel, who was a
former SEC Enforcement attorney, as a defendant
in the SEC’s civil complaint filed in
U.S. District Court. The complainant specifically
alleged that during the former
Enforcement attorney’s tenure as the company’s
attorney, he signed off on opinion letters
that resulted in the fraudulent issuance of
over 300 billion shares of the company’s stock,
but that he was not charged in the SEC’s lawsuit.
After conducting an initial inquiry into
the allegations, the OIG opened an investigation
of the matter on November 25, 2009.
During the course of this investigation, the
OIG obtained, searched and reviewed nearly
2,000 e-mails and supporting materials. The
OIG also conducted sworn, on-the-record testimony
of the Enforcement attorneys who
conducted the Enforcement investigation of
the company to determine whether the former
Enforcement attorney received preferential
treatment.
After conducting a thorough investigation
into the complainant’s allegation of preferential
treatment by Enforcement, the OIG issued
its report of investigation to management on
March 16, 2010. In the report, the OIG
found no evidence to suggest that the former
Enforcement attorney’s employment with the
SEC, which lasted a total of only 15 months,
had any bearing on Enforcement’s decision
not to charge him in the federal lawsuit
against the company. To the contrary, the
evidence demonstrated that Enforcement staff
seriously considered the question of whether
to charge the attorney, weighing the pros and
cons of bringing an action against him in an
attempt to resolve what could fairly be considered
a “tough call.” The OIG found that
Enforcement investigated the matter in good
faith and made its charging decisions on reasonable
grounds. In light of these findings,
the OIG closed the matter without making
any referral to management
millionaires.proboards.com/index.....1&page=1#445587
tramp2.proboards.com/index.cgi?ac....ad=13721&page=1
Junior Miner
Re: gossip July 23-24, 2010
« Reply #17 Today at 8:47pm »
Allegation of Preferential Treatment of
a Former SEC Attorney (Report No.
OIG-528)
The OIG opened an inquiry on November
18, 2008, after receiving an investor complaint
alleging that over 50,000 investors of a
publicly-traded company had been defrauded
by the company, suffering losses of $250 million.
The complainant also questioned why
SEC officials had failed to name the company’s
former outside counsel, who was a
former SEC Enforcement attorney, as a defendant
in the SEC’s civil complaint filed in
U.S. District Court. The complainant specifically
alleged that during the former
Enforcement attorney’s tenure as the company’s
attorney, he signed off on opinion letters
that resulted in the fraudulent issuance of
over 300 billion shares of the company’s stock,
but that he was not charged in the SEC’s lawsuit.
After conducting an initial inquiry into
the allegations, the OIG opened an investigation
of the matter on November 25, 2009.
During the course of this investigation, the
OIG obtained, searched and reviewed nearly
2,000 e-mails and supporting materials. The
OIG also conducted sworn, on-the-record testimony
of the Enforcement attorneys who
conducted the Enforcement investigation of
the company to determine whether the former
Enforcement attorney received preferential
treatment.
After conducting a thorough investigation
into the complainant’s allegation of preferential
treatment by Enforcement, the OIG issued
its report of investigation to management on
March 16, 2010. In the report, the OIG
found no evidence to suggest that the former
Enforcement attorney’s employment with the
SEC, which lasted a total of only 15 months,
had any bearing on Enforcement’s decision
not to charge him in the federal lawsuit
against the company. To the contrary, the
evidence demonstrated that Enforcement staff
seriously considered the question of whether
to charge the attorney, weighing the pros and
cons of bringing an action against him in an
attempt to resolve what could fairly be considered
a “tough call.” The OIG found that
Enforcement investigated the matter in good
faith and made its charging decisions on reasonable
grounds. In light of these findings,
the OIG closed the matter without making
any referral to management
millionaires.proboards.com/index.....1&page=1#445587
tramp2.proboards.com/index.cgi?ac....ad=13721&page=1