Stock Manipulation, Bed Bath & Beyond as a Meme Stock, and Ryan Cohen
On Friday, September 2, the man who lived on the 18th floor of 56 Leonard Street in New York’s Tribeca district didn’t go to work or, perhaps, he came home very early. We know only that at about 12:30 in the afternoon, he fell from one of the balconies of his luxury apartment, landing on the roof of an adjacent building. Someone called 911. A crying woman appeared and accompanied the paramedics and the body to the hospital. Though some video was shot by journalists at the scene, the story didn’t get much publicity. It was carried by the New York Post, which said the man was pronounced dead at the scene, adding that the police had not offered further details.
It wasn’t until Sunday afternoon that the victim was identified as Gustavo Arnal, chief financial officer and executive vice president of troubled home décor retailer Bed Bath & Beyond (BBBY). Arnal, 52, lived in the “Jenga Building”—so-called because its asymmetrical balconies are reminiscent of the popular game—with his wife and two adult daughters. According to the Post, he “didn’t say a word to his wife before apparently leaping to his death.” Neither did he leave a note.
The medical examiner ruled the death a suicide. Bed Bath & Beyond’s interim chairwoman, Harriet Edelman, conveyed her condolences to the family in a company press release. Colleagues and social media friends said they were shocked; that what he’d done seemed to them out of character. Read More
US and China reach deal in dispute over Chinese company audits
The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) and U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) announced Friday that both sides signed an agreement to allow U.S. regulators to inspect the audits of Chinese companies whose stocks are traded on U.S. exchanges.
U.S. regulators have long demanded access to audit papers of Chinese companies listed in the United States, but Beijing has been reluctant to let overseas regulators inspect accounting firms, citing security concerns. As a result, U.S. regulators have threatened to boot around 150 Chinese companies, including Alibaba, off the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. Read More
SEC moves to revoke dozens of inactive issuers
Over the past week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has initiated 26 new administrative proceedings against inactive SEC issuers, moving towards revoking the issuers’ securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act.
The 26 administrative proceedings against delinquent SEC filers filed by the SEC between August 17 and August 22 is more than the rest of 2022 combined. Read More
Going Public and Direct Public Offerings Provide Benefits in 2022
Going public is still considered a benefit to issuers seeking to raise capital or obtain recognition of their business. Even in a down economy, private companies seek the perceived benefits of being publicly traded. While there are a variety of ways to create a publicly traded company, each comes with its own unique requirements and risks. The Direct Public Offering (“DPO”) eliminates many of the risks and expenses associated with reverse mergers into public shell companies. Issuers going public using a DPO also have fewer hurdles to obtaining electronic trading from Depository Trust Company (“DTC”).
Reverse merger companies often encounter DTC chills and global locks because of prior unregistered securities issuances and the public shells prior management. Read More
SEC Targets Publicly Traded Chinese Issuers Under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act
Since Baidu, Inc. (BIDU) completed its going public transaction in August 2005 on the NASDAQ Stock Market, many U.S. investors have found themselves fascinated and frustrated by Chinese companies. Baidu, a technology giant and AI developer offering, among many other things, the world’s second-largest search engine, has been a winner overall. But not all publicly traded Chinese companies in the States have been as kind to their investors. Some have simply failed to succeed, but others have committed serious fraud. Blatant as it often is, it’s also hard to nail down because Chinese companies, and even the Chinese government, have shown resistance to accounting safeguards we’ve come to consider normal in the wake of our own public company scandals of the first decade of the century.
In 2020, Congress passed the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCAA); it was signed into law on December 18. Technically an amendment to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, it requires “foreign issuers” to declare that they aren’t owned or staffed by the Chinese Communist Party. In addition, Chinese companies that have securities registered with the SEC must use auditors whose work can be inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”). The PCAOB was created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 and, since then, has regularly inspected auditing firms that deal with public companies. The HFCAA requires that the PCAOB do the same in China, inspecting the firms that audit Chinese companies trading on U.S. exchanges. Read More
In Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) adjudication of fraud cases in administrative proceedings is unconstitutional
On May 18, 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission held that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative proceedings adjudicating securities is unconstitutional.
On March 22, 2013, the SEC brought an enforcement action against hedge fund operator George R. Jarkesy, Jr. and Patriot 28, L.L.C (collectively “Jarkesy”)., alleging that they engaged in securities fraud under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Jarkesy filed an interlocutory challenge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to enjoin the SEC administrative proceedings based on constitutional defects. The district court held, and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later affirmed, that the SEC administrative proceedings lacked jurisdiction over the case and that Jarkesy had to exhaust administrative remedies before raising their constitutional claims before a federal court of appeals. Read More
Court Denies Carebourn Capital’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings in SEC Case
On May 24, 2022, United States District Judge Katherine Menendez filed her Order in response to Carebourn Capital, L.P.’s Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings to dismiss the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) case filed against the penny stock financier, denying all of Carebourn’s claims.
The SEC filed charges against Carebourn and its managing partner Chip Rice of Maple Grove, Minnesota (collectively, the “Defendants”), on September 24, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the “Complaint”), charging the Defendants with acting as unregistered securities dealers in connection with their buying and selling of billions of newly-issued shares of microcap securities, or “penny stocks,” which generated millions of dollars for Carebourn and Rice. Read More
PCAOB Sanctions Former BF Borgers Audit Director Bo-Shiang (“Eric”) Lien
On May 24, 2022, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) announced that it has sanctioned Bo-Shiang (“Eric”) Lien, a former audit director and non-equity partner at BF Borgers CPA PC, for violations of PCAOB rules and standards in connection with the audits by BF Borgers of the financial statements of three public companies between 2017 and 2019.
Lien is a certified public accountant licensed by the state of Colorado (license no. 0030719). At all relevant times, Lien was an audit manager or director (non-equity partner) of BF Borgers and served as an engagement partner on issuer audits.
Since 2017, BF Borgers has been involved in providing audits for dozens (if not hundreds) of public companies.
The PCAOB found that Lien violated PCAOB rules and standards while serving as the engagement partner on BF Borgers’ audits of the 2019 financial statements of Chineseinvestors.com, Inc., the 2018 financial statements of United Cannabis Corporation, and the 2015 and 2016 financial statements of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. Read More
Resales of Restricted Securities By Non-Affiliates
Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), requires that all offers and sales of securities be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or exempt from SEC registration. When shares have not been registered with the SEC, investors receive restricted securities. Investors most often receive restricted securities in private placements that are exempt pursuant to Rule 506(b) or Rule 506(c) of Regulation D of the Securities Act.
In most circumstances, restricted securities are not subject to a Form S-1 registration statement under the Securities Act. Resales of restricted shares can be registered with the SEC on Form S-1 or other SEC registration statement. Investors with restricted securities may resell their shares publicly if they comply with the requirements of SEC Rule 144 of the Securities Act.
What Is the OTC Markets Expert Market? Securities Lawyer Blog
Most of the companies quoted on OTC Markets are not able to meet the minimum listing requirements for trading on a national securities exchange. Many of these companies do not file periodic reports or audited financial statements with the SEC, making it difficult for the public to find current, reliable information about those companies. Companies quoted on the OTC Markets are divided into four tiers, the OTCQX, the OTCQB, the OTC Pink and the Expert Market. Companies on the Expert Market provide the lowest level of disclosure in comparison to other OTC Market tiers. As a result, trading is limited to quotation on an unsolicited basis.
On October 15, OTC Markets reported that “2,247 former Pink No Information securities shifted to the Expert Market tier, where securities may only be quoted on an Unsolicited (customer order) basis. Quotes of securities in the Expert Market are “Unsolicited Only,” which means that trades of securities subject to unsolicited quotation in the Expert Market are only available to broker-dealers, institutions and other sophisticated investors, and not average investors.
The SEC’s amendments to Rule 15c2-11 became effective on September 28, 2021. Amended Rule 15c2-11 eliminated broker-dealer quotes of securities of issuers that fail to make current information publicly available. With the amendments to Rule 15c2-11, the OTC Markets Group Expert Market became the platform for broker-dealers to publish unsolicited quotes of securities designated as “No Information” securities. Typically, these are companies not subject to or not in compliance with SEC public company reporting requirements.
Because of the restrictions imposed on securities quoted on the Expert Market, most investors will not be able to publicly sell their shares. Additionally, they will not have access to bid and ask prices or other information, including trading volume. As such, Expert Market shares are illiquid.
Companies moved to the Expert Market from another OTC Markets tier can apply to relist on the OTC Pink or other OTC Markets tier by becoming an SEC reporting company, submitting a new Form 211, and meeting OTC Markets requirements for the particular tier.