SEC Actions in Orange County Investigation: Misstatements and Omissions Alleged in the Disclosure Material for Offerings of More Than $2.1 Billion in Municipal Securities

Article excerpt

Editor's note: The following article presents excerpts from the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Litigation Release No. 14792, dated January 24, 1996.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on January 24, 1996, the Commission brought its first enforcement actions relating to the Commission's investigation into the financial collapse of Orange County, California and the Orange County Investment Pools (the "County Pools"). Specifically, the enforcement actions taken by the Commission today are [the following:]

* the filing of a complaint in the United States District Court against former Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert L. "Bob" Citron and former Assistant Treasurer Matthew R. Raabe, and

* the institution of a cease and desist administrative proceeding and the entry of a cease and desist order against Orange County, the Orange County Flood Control District and the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

All of the above parties were charged with violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Citron and Raabe, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, consented to the entry of final judgments of permanent injunction, enjoining them from future violations of the antifraud provisions. Orange County, the Flood Control District and the Board of Supervisors submitted an Offer of Settlement, in which, without admitting or denying the findings, they consented to the entry of an Order which makes findings and orders them to cease and desist from committing or causing any violation and any future violation of the antifraud provisions. In addition, all of the parties agreed to cooperate with Commission staff in the continuing investigation and any resulting litigation.

Also on January 24, the Commission issued a Report of Investigation concerning the conduct of individual members of the Board of Supervisors.... The Report of Investigation does not constitute an adjudication of any fact or issue addressed in the Report. The Supervisors have consented to the issuance of the Report without admitting or denying any of the statements or conclusions addressed therein.

The enforcement proceedings concern the fraudulent offer and sale of over $2.1 billion in municipal securities issued in 1993 and 1994 by Orange County, the Flood Control District and a school district located within Orange County, which was not named in the actions.

Each of the municipal securities offerings was significantly dependent upon the County Pools such that accurate disclosure about the County Pools was material to investors. The County Pools operated as an investment fund managed by Orange County in which the County and various local governments or districts invested or deposited public funds. The County Pools consisted of the Commingled Pool, the Bond Pool and Specific Investments. Each of the municipal securities offerings was connected to the County Pools in one or more ways:

* the proceeds from certain offerings were reinvested in the County Pools to obtain interest earnings;

* the funds pledged to repay certain of the securities were invested in the County Pools;

* the County Pools agreed to repurchase or repay certain of the securities; and/or

* the County's economic reliance on the County Pools materially affected its ability to repay the securities.

Misstatements and Omissions Alleged in the Commission's Actions

Misstatements and Omissions Regarding the County Pools. The Official Statements for the eleven offerings misrepresented or omitted to disclose material information concerning the County Pools, despite their significance to each of the offerings. Where the funds pledged to repay the noteholders were invested in the County Pools, the issuer looked to that investment to satisfy its repayment obligations. …


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.