Securities Industry Commentator by Bill Singer Esq

Federal Court Denies Reconsideration of FINRA Referral Letter Cited In Federal Insider Trading Appeal (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog)

Honeywell UOP to Pay Over $160 Million to Resolve Foreign Bribery Investigations in U.S. and Brazil (DOJ Release)

Chandler Man Sentenced to 33 Months for Defrauding Investors (DOJ Release)

U.S. Attorney Announces Arrest Of Lamor Whitehead For Fraud, Extortion, And False Statements (DOJ Release)

SEC Charges Honeywell with Bribery Schemes in Algeria and Brazil (SEC Release)

SEC Charges Undisclosed Control Person and His Alter-Ego Entity in Penny Stock Scheme (SEC Release)

SEC Awards Over $29 Million and $8 Million Whistleblower Award to Claimant

Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims

[B]etween 2010 and 2014, Honeywell UOP conspired to offer an approximately $4 million bribe to a then-high-ranking executive of Petróleo Brasileiro S.A (Petrobras) in Brazil. Specifically, Honeywell UOP offered the bribe to secure improper advantages in order to obtain and retain business from Petrobras in connection with Honeywell UOP's efforts to win an approximately $425 million contract from Petrobras to design and build an oil refinery called Premium.

. . .

According to court documents, in order to effectuate the bribery scheme, Honeywell UOP entered into an agency agreement with a sales agent for the purpose of funding and paying the $4 million bribe to the high-ranking Petrobras executive. In exchange for the bribe, and after obtaining business advantages, including inside information and secret assistance, from the Petrobras executive, Honeywell UOP won the contract. Honeywell UOP earned approximately $105.5 million in profits from the corruptly obtained business. 

. . .

Pursuant to the DPA, Honeywell UOP will pay a criminal penalty of approximately $79 million. The department has agreed to credit up to approximately $39.6 million of that criminal penalty against amounts the company has agreed to pay to authorities in Brazil in connection with related proceedings to resolve an investigation by the Controladoria-Geral da União (CGU), the Ministério Público Federal (MPF), and the Advocacia-Geral de União (Attorney General's Office). In addition, Honeywell UOP will pay approximately $81 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest as part of the resolution of a parallel investigation by the SEC. 

. . .

As part of the DPA, Honeywell UOP has agreed to continue to cooperate with the department in any ongoing or future criminal investigations relating to this conduct. In addition, under the agreement, Honeywell UOP and its parent company, Honeywell International Inc., agreed to continue to enhance its compliance program and provide reports to the department regarding the implementation of compliance measures for the term of the DPA.

The department reached this resolution with Honeywell UOP based on a number of factors, including, among others, the nature and seriousness of the offense. Honeywell UOP received full credit for its cooperation with the department's investigation, which included, among other things, (i) proactively disclosing certain evidence of which the department was previously unaware; (ii) providing information obtained through its internal investigation, which allowed the department to preserve and obtain evidence as part of its own independent investigation; (iii) making detailed presentations to the department; (iv) voluntarily facilitating interviews of employees; and (v) collecting and producing voluminous relevant documents and translations to the department, including documents located outside the United States. The company promptly engaged in extensive remedial measures including, among other things, terminating and disciplining certain employees involved in the misconduct and strengthening its compliance program. In light of these considerations, the criminal penalty calculated under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines reflects a 25% reduction off the bottom of the applicable guidelines fine range. 

The SEC's order finds that Honeywell, a U.S.-based global manufacturer of aerospace, building technologies, and automation products, engaged in a bribery scheme involving intermediaries and employees of its U.S. subsidiary to obtain business from the Brazil state-owned entity Petrobras. Specifically, the order finds that, in 2010, Honeywell offered at least $4 million in bribes to a high-ranking Brazilian government official in connection with the bidding process at Petrobras. The SEC's order also finds that, in 2011, employees and agents of Honeywell's Belgian subsidiary paid more than $75,000 in bribes to an Algerian government official to obtain and retain business with the Algerian state-owned entity Sonatrach.

One of McHatton's co-defendants at trial, Robert Sproat, 60, of Mesa, Arizona, was previously sentenced to 30 months in prison. Prior to trial, a third co-defendant, Robert Moss, 56, of Gilbert, Arizona, pleaded guilty to his involvement in the scheme and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that, between 2012 and 2014, McHatton, Sproat, and Moss used a religious charitable organization as a front to entice victims to invest over $1.2 million. Several of the victims targeted in the scheme were elderly. McHatton, Sproat, and Moss fraudulently promoted investments in the recovery of low alpha lead from Central America, gold from the Philippines, and diamonds from Africa, though none of the items were ever produced. McHatton, Sproat, and Moss used large portions of the investment funds for their own personal use. The victims never received a return on investments other than minimal "interest" payments derived from other victims' money.

LAMOR WHITEHEAD, who leads a church in Brooklyn, New York, has engaged in a  course of conduct in which he sought money and other things of value from victims on the basis of either threats or false promises that the victims' investments would benefit the victims financially.  First, WHITEHEAD induced one of his parishioners to invest approximately $90,000 of her retirement savings with him but instead spent the investment on luxury goods and other personal purposes.  Second, WHITEHEAD extorted a businessman for $5,000, then attempted to convince the same businessman to lend him $500,000 and give him a stake in certain real estate transactions in return for favorable actions from the New York City government, which WHITEHEAD knew he could not obtain.  In addition, when speaking with FBI agents who were executing a search warrant, WHITEHEAD falsely claimed that he had no cellphones other than the phone he was carrying when, in fact, WHITEHEAD owned a second phone, which he regularly used to communicate - including to send a text message describing it as "my other phone" shortly after telling the agents he had no other phones.

[B]etween approximately February 2018 and July 2018, Kistler and his alter-ego entity, NOBS, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to take control of Williamsville, a dormant microcap shell company, and deceitfully pump up the purported value of the company and its shares in order to "flip" the company and/or its shares for a profit. According to the complaint, to carry out the scheme, Kistler made false and misleading statements to OTC Markets Group, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"), and Williamsville's transfer agent.  Kistler also allegedly made false and misleading statements to the public through Williamsville's public filings. In addition, according to the complaint, Kistler engaged in manipulative purchases of Williamsville stock in order to give the appearance of bona fide market activity in the stock.  As alleged in the complaint, Kistler and NOBS benefited from this scheme.  Specifically, Kistler, through NOBS, received $50,000 for brokering the sale of Williamsville, and NOBS received 100 million Williamsville shares.  Kistler also received $32,500 to engage in manipulative purchases of Williamsville's stock.

[While Claimant, an outsider to the company, did not first submit the information to the company, Claimant made persistent efforts to bring the conduct to the attention of the Commission as well as the company. Further, the principal objective of Rule 21F-4(c)(3) - to encourage internal reporting, thereby allowing a company the opportunity to address the conduct - was satisfied here. Quickly after Claimant submitted the email to the company, the company opened an internal investigation, hired outside counsel to conduct the investigation, and reported the allegations to the Commission. It would be in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to waive the first requirement of Rule 21F-4(c)(3) as to Claimant's award application for both the Covered Action and the Related Action.

In applying the facts under Rules 21F-6(a) and (b), we find the recommended award percentages to be appropriate. Claimant's initial anonymous tip to the company was the initial source of the company's internal investigation, as well as both the Commission's and Other Agency's investigations. Claimant submitted multiple anonymous tips to both the company and the Commission throughout the course of the investigations. The resulting Covered and Related Actions, however, addressed misconduct broader than that reported in Claimant's tips and a large percentage of the monetary sanctions ordered against the company related to conduct other than the violations alleged by Claimant. Further, Claimant's level of contribution to the Covered Action was higher than to the Related Action, as Claimant's specific allegations were not included as part of the charges in the action brought by the Other Agency. 

• Securities Industry Commentator
• Bill Singer