HOME ABOUT US NEWS & ARTICLES LEGAL COMMUNITY CONTACT US February 7, 2012
Merger Acquisition
             
 
Selecting a merger acquisition attorney for your legal case is a very important decision. Please enter a zip code to find an attorney that serves your area:
 
Zip Code:  
 

Merger Acquisition Newsroom

 
 

< Back to Previous Page

Illinois Case On Information From The Director About The Pending Merger

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission alleges as follows:

1. This case involves insider trading by the Defendants in the securities of Blue Rhino Corporation before a February 2004 public merger announcement. Matthew Roszak, the chief financial officer of a private company owned by a Blue Rhino director and a trusted confidant of the director, abused his position of trust and confidence and misappropriated material, non-public information from the director about the pending merger.
2. Roszak used the information to buy Blue Rhino stock for himself, as well as to tip Defendants Douglas Jozwiak and Darrin Edgecombe and two relatives to the non-public Blue Rhino merger negotiations.
3. Jozwiak and Edgecombe both bought Blue Rhino stock in advance of the acquisition. In addition, Edgecombe tipped Defendants Trifon Beladakis and Mark Michel, the latter a registered representative with Wachovia Securities, LLC. Beladakis and Michel both bought Blue Rhino stock.
4. In total, the Defendants purchased $742,987 of Blue Rhino stock, with many of the purchases occurring just days before the public merger announcement. In addition, after he was tipped and during the week prior to the public merger announcement, Michel purchased more than $1.2 million of Blue Rhino stock on behalf of his relatives and customers at Wachovia. The Defendants profited from these trades by selling the shares of Blue Rhino stock they bought prior to the merger announcement at higher prices after the merger was announced.
5. By engaging in the conduct described above, and described more fully below, each of the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.

Conclusion:
Permanently restrain and enjoin the Defendants and their agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys-in-fact, and assigns and those persons in active concert or participation with them, and each of them, from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.

Order each Defendant who purchased and sold Blue Rhino securities on the basis of material, non-public information to disgorge his trading profits from each illegal trade, including prejudgment interest thereon.

Order each Defendant to disgorge all profits, including prejudgment interest thereon, realized by (i) the persons to whom that Defendant unlawfully communicated material, non-public information, and (ii) the person who traded while in possession of material, non-public information learned as a result of that Defendant’s unlawful communication of material, non-public information.

Order each of the Defendants to pay civil penalties pursuant to Section 21A of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-1.


Contact a Lawyer now for a free case review.

 

 
  Latest News  
   
  Regional Resources
 
Alabama
Missouri
Alaska Montana
Arizona Nebraska
Arkansas Nevada
California New Hampshire
Colorado New Jersey
Connecticut New Mexico
DC New York
Delaware North Carolina
Florida North Dakota
Georgia Ohio
Hawaii Oklahoma
Idaho Oregon
Illinois Pennsylvania
Indiana Rhode Island
Iowa South Carolina
Kansas South Dakota
Kentucky Tennessee
Louisiana Texas
Maine Utah
Maryland Vermont
Massachusetts Virginia
Michigan Washington
Minnesota West Virginia
Mississippi Wisconsin
  Wyoming
Browse Map >
  Hot Topics
 
  Did You Know?
 

The Federal Trade Commission investigates mergers.

The FTC spends substantial time reviewing mergers and acquisitions to determine if the merger will lessen competition or create a monopoly.

Contact Merger Acquisition Attorney

The HSR Act saves on antitrust litigation.

Before the HSR Act, the agency often heard about and investigated the transaction after it had finalized. If the review found the transactions in violation of the antitrust laws, then the cases became costly and impractical.

Contact Merger Acquisition Attorney

During a merger, the operation department is responsible for a smooth transition.

The operations department within a company is among the most affected area of a business, during a merger.  Operations, ensures that the company’s network is up and running at all times during the initial merger making the move as smooth as possible.

Contact Merger Acquisition Attorney


 


Legal Disclaimers
All attorney listings are a paid attorney advertisement, and do not in any way constitute a referral or endorsement by an approved or authorized lawyer referral service. The information provided on Merger Acquisition Attorney.com is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered. Please contact a local attorney in your area for official legal and law information. Your access to and use of this website is subject to additional Terms and Conditions.

Local Professional? Generate new business today
Call 866-227-9356 or contact a sales rep


This site is part of the LawFirms.com Network
©2012 ExpertHub, wholly owned subsidiary of MoxyMedia, Inc.