Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

 

 

 

 

BROWSE BY TOPIC

ABOUT FINANCIALISH

We seek to provide information, insights and direction that may enable the Financial Community to effectively and efficiently operate in a regulatory risk-free environment by curating content from all over the web.

 

Stay Informed with the latest fanancialish news.

 

SUBSCRIBE FOR
NEWSLETTERS & ALERTS

FOLLOW US

Archive

Fund Manager In Contempt: Violates SEC Settlement

June 26, 2012
[ by Melanie Gretchen ] A Bay Area hedge fund manager who failed to fulfill his disgorgement obligations will now have to pay the price.  Under terms of a 3/16/11 SEC settlement, defendants Lawrence Goldfarb (unrelated to C-I's Laurence Goldfarb) and Baystar Capital Management were ordered to pay $14.1 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, beginning with 4 progress payments, including a $1.025mn payment. Goldfarb, however, made only 3 small payments, and failed to pay the $1.025mn progress payment or the final payment.  In April 2012, the SEC filed an Application with the Court for an order for defendants to show cause why they should not be found in civil contempt of the Final Judgment. A Court Order dated 6/20/12 found the defendants to be in breach of the Final Judgment by failing to pay the disgorgement amounts ordered.  The Court also found that defendants had failed to establish a good faith effort to fulfill their disgorgement obligations because, among other things, they used available funds for large personal expenses such as courtside seats to Golden State Warriors games, charters of aircraft for personal trips, Goldfarb’s mortgage payment and numerous personal vacations, rather than to pay disgorgement. Terms of the June 2012 Order. In the Order, the Court approved the appointment of a receiver over defendants’ assets and reaffirmed its prior order limiting Goldfarb’s monthly spending. The case: SEC v. Lawrence R. Goldfarb and Baystar Capital Group, LLC, CV-11-00938 WHA (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, filed March 1, 2011).   [SEC, 6/25/12]. For additional information about the SEC's case against the defendants, refer to:  [Litigation Release 21870, 3/1/11], and [Press Release No. 2011-54, 3/1/11].