Targeted News Service

Paul S. Atkins Sworn In as SEC Chairman

WASHINGTON, April 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release:

* * *

Paul S. Atkins Sworn In as SEC Chairman

Washington D.C., April 21, 2025 -- Paul S. Atkins was sworn into office today as the 34th Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Chairman Atkins was nominated by President Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2025, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 9, 2025.

"I am honored by the trust and confidence President Trump and the Senate have placed in me to lead the SEC," said Chairman Atkins. "As I return to the SEC, I am pleased to join with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release: * * * Paul S. Atkins Sworn In as SEC Chairman Washington D.C., April 21, 2025 -- Paul S. Atkins was sworn into office today as the 34th Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Chairman Atkins was nominated by President Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2025, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 9, 2025. "I am honored by the trust and confidence President Trump and the Senate have placed in me to lead the SEC," said Chairman Atkins. "As I return to the SEC, I am pleased to join withmy fellow Commissioners and the agency's dedicated professionals to advance its mission to facilitate capital formation; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and protect investors. Together we will work to ensure that the U.S. is the best and most secure place in the world to invest and do business."

Prior to returning to the SEC, Chairman Atkins was most recently chief executive of Patomak Global Partners, a company he founded in 2009. Chairman Atkins helped lead efforts to develop best practices for the digital asset sector. He served as an independent director and non-executive chairman of the board of BATS Global Markets, Inc. from 2012 to 2015.

Chairman Atkins was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as a Commissioner of the SEC from 2002 to 2008. During his tenure, he advocated for transparency, consistency, and the use of cost-benefit analysis at the agency. Chairman Atkins also represented the SEC at meetings of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets and the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Economic Council. From 2009 to 2010, he was appointed a member of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Before serving as an SEC Commissioner, Chairman Atkins was as a consultant on securities and investment management industry matters, especially regarding issues of strategy, regulatory compliance, risk management, new product development, and organizational control.

From 1990 to 1994, Chairman Atkins served on the staff of two chairmen of the SEC, Richard C. Breeden and Arthur Levitt, ultimately as chief of staff and counselor, respectively.

Chairman Atkins began his career as a lawyer in New York, focusing on a wide range of corporate transactions for U.S. and foreign clients, including public and private securities offerings and mergers and acquisitions. He was resident for 21/2 years in his firm's Paris office and admitted as conseil juridique in France.

A member of the New York and Florida bars, Chairman Atkins received his J.D. from Vanderbilt University School of Law in 1983 and his A.B., Phi Beta Kappa, from Wofford College in 1980.

Originally from Lillington, North Carolina, Chairman Atkins grew up in Tampa, Florida. He and his wife Sarah have three sons.

* * *

Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-68

Monitor Appointed in SEC Case Concerning Multi-Faceted Fraud on Broad Street Global Fund, LLC and Its Investors

WASHINGTON, April 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:25-cv-20436-DPG; S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 29, 2025):

* * *

Securities and Exchange Commission v. David J. Feingold, Joseph B. Baldassarra, Steven S. Baldassarra, Broad Street Global Management, LLC, Broad Street Inc. et. al., Case No. 1:25-cv-20436-DPG (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 29, 2025)

On April 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida appointed an agreed-upon monitor in the Securities and Exchange Commission's ongoing litigation against David J. Feingold, Steven ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:25-cv-20436-DPG; S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 29, 2025): * * * Securities and Exchange Commission v. David J. Feingold, Joseph B. Baldassarra, Steven S. Baldassarra, Broad Street Global Management, LLC, Broad Street Inc. et. al., Case No. 1:25-cv-20436-DPG (S.D. Fla. filed Jan. 29, 2025) On April 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida appointed an agreed-upon monitor in the Securities and Exchange Commission's ongoing litigation against David J. Feingold, StevenS. Baldassarra, Joseph B. Baldassarra, Broad Street Inc., and Broad Street Global Management, LLC. The SEC charged the defendants with a multi-faceted fraud involving Broad Street Global Fund, LLC (the Fund), a private equity fund. The monitor is charged with evaluating the conduct of Broad Street Inc., Broad Street Global Management, the Fund, and other related corporate entities. The order appointing the monitor also continues a previous stipulated order that states that Defendants will not solicit any potential or actual investors or accept any additional investments on behalf of the Fund until further order of the Court.

According to the SEC's Complaint, since approximately October 2020, the defendants have raised approximately $1 billion from over a thousand investors for the Fund, which offers investments through separate series, including investments in merchant cash advances, real estate infrastructure development, custom home building, hotel projects, qualified small business stock, and others. Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, rather than use the funds provided by investors to invest on the Fund's behalf, nearly all investor funds were diverted to accounts and assets owned and controlled by Broad Street Global Management, the Baldassarras, or Broad Street Inc.

The Complaint further alleges that the defendants fraudulently offered and paid inflated returns to investors in at least two major series. For example, the Complaint alleges that the defendants claimed that investments in merchant cash advances - short term funding to small businesses - generated significant profits when in fact they did not. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the Baldassarras engaged in fraud by commingling Fund investor monies and creating cross-liability among the Fund's series, contrary to promises to investors that their investments would not be subject to the risks of series they did not invest in. The Complaint further alleges that the defendants promised investors in a series related to qualified small business stock would generate tax-free returns, when the funds were not invested as promised. According to the Complaint, collectively, Feingold and the Baldassarras have taken tens of millions of dollars from the Fund.

The SEC's Complaint, filed on January 29, 2025, remains largely under seal at the request of the defendants; the SEC has moved the Court to unseal the Complaint and other documents. The Complaint charges the defendants with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder; it also charges the Feingold, the Baldassarras, and Broad Street Global Management, LLC with violating Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Baldassarras and Broad Street Global Management, LLC with violating Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint further charges Broad Street Global Management, LLC and the Baldassarras with violating the antifraud provisions of Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and names two entities associated with the Baldassarras as relief defendants. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against all of the defendants.

The SEC's investigation was conducted by Lee Robinson and Emily Scruggs, and supervised by Ian Karpel and Nicholas Heinke of the SEC's Denver Regional Office. The litigation is being conducted by Terry Miller and Jacqueline Moessner and supervised by Gregory Kasper and Mr. Heinke, all also of the SEC's Denver Regional Office.

* * *

Resources

* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26289.pdf)

* Order (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2025/order26289.pdf)

* * *

Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26289

CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment on 24/7 Trading

WASHINGTON, April 22 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release on April 21, 2025:

* * *

CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment on 24/7 Trading

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Divisions of Market Oversight, Clearing and Risk, and Market Participants today issued a Request for Comment to better inform them on the potential uses, benefits, and risks of trading on a 24/7 basis in the derivatives markets the CFTC regulates.

"As I have long said, the CFTC must take a forward-looking approach to shifts in market structure to ensure our markets ... Show Full Article

CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment Regarding Perpetual Contracts in Derivatives Markets

WASHINGTON, April 22 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release on April 21, 2025:

* * *

CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment Regarding Perpetual Contracts in Derivatives Markets

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Divisions of Market Oversight, Clearing and Risk, and Market Participants today issued a Request for Comment to better inform them on the potential uses, benefits, and risks of perpetual contracts in the derivatives markets the CFTC regulates ("Perpetual Derivatives").

"Innovation and new technology has created a renaissance ... Show Full Article

The Results Companies to Pay $250,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:

* * *

The Results Companies to Pay $250,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Federal Agency Said Outsourcing Firm Failed to Accommodate Blind Employee, Then Fired Her

DALLAS -- The Results Companies, LLC, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based business services outsourcing firm, agreed to pay $250,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC's suit, The Results Companies ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release: * * * The Results Companies to Pay $250,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Federal Agency Said Outsourcing Firm Failed to Accommodate Blind Employee, Then Fired Her DALLAS -- The Results Companies, LLC, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based business services outsourcing firm, agreed to pay $250,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. According to the EEOC's suit, The Results Companieshired an employee who is blind as a telephonic customer service representative to work from its call center in Wichita Falls, Texas. After accepting the position, the employee requested to use screen reader software as a reasonable accommodation so that she could review written material on her computer screen. Screen readers convert text and other information on computers into synthesized speech.

The lawsuit charged that the company did not take reasonable steps to facilitate the employee's use of screen reader software, refused the employee's suggestion that the company contact her vocational counselor and the publisher of her screen reader software to request technical assistance, and then fired her because she required the reasonable accommodation.

This alleged conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from making employment decisions based on an individual's disability or need for reasonable accommodation and requires them to make accommodations absent an undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-00128) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The two-year consent decree settling the suit, approved by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, requires The Results Companies to provide internal training about rights and responsibilities under the ADA and implement a plan for handling requests for accommodation from future employees who require access to screen reader technology.

"Generalized conclusions will not support a claim of undue hardship," said Travis Nicholson, director of the EEOC's Dallas District Office. "It is important for employers to meaningfully participate in the interactive process once an employee requests a reasonable accommodation and gather information specific to the situation at hand, even if they may not be familiar with the requested accommodation."

Alexa Lang, a trial attorney in the EEOC's Dallas District Office, said, "Accommodating employees who are blind with screen reader software such as JAWS (Job Access With Speech) is not automatically an undue hardship. Employers must meaningfully assess their technical capabilities and available resources."

For more information on disability discrimination against individuals who are blind or visually impaired, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/visual-disabilities-workplace-and-americans-disabilities-act. For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

The EEOC's Dallas District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Texas and parts of New Mexico.

The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division; the EEOC is responsible for investigating charges against state and local government employers before referring them to DOJ for potential litigation. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov (link is external). Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates (link is external).

***

Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/results-companies-pay-250000-eeoc-disability-discrimination-lawsuit

FTC Takes Action Against Uber for Deceptive Billing and Cancellation Practices

WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:

* * *

FTC Takes Action Against Uber for Deceptive Billing and Cancellation Practices

The Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit today against Uber, alleging the rideshare and delivery company charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its "cancel anytime" promises.

"Americans are tired of getting signed up for unwanted subscriptions that seem impossible to cancel," said ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release: * * * FTC Takes Action Against Uber for Deceptive Billing and Cancellation Practices The Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit today against Uber, alleging the rideshare and delivery company charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its "cancel anytime" promises. "Americans are tired of getting signed up for unwanted subscriptions that seem impossible to cancel," saidFTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. "The Trump-Vance FTC is fighting back on behalf of the American people. Today, we're alleging that Uber not only deceived consumers about their subscriptions, but also made it unreasonably difficult for customers to cancel."

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Uber used deceptive billing and cancellation practices. For example, the complaint alleges:

* When signing up for Uber One, customers are wrongly promised savings of $25 a month. Even if that were true, Uber does not account for the cost of the subscription (up to $9.99/month) when calculating those savings. The company also obscures material information about the subscription (for example, by using small, greyed out text which consumers can easily miss). Many consumers say they were enrolled without consent; the complaint quotes one consumer saying they were charged despite not even having an Uber account.

* After sign-up, Uber charges consumers before their billing date. For example, some consumers who signed up for a free trial say they were automatically charged for the service before the free trial ended even though Uber promises customers the ability to cancel at no charge during the trial period.

* When customers try to cancel, Uber makes it extremely difficult. Users can be forced to navigate as many as 23 screens and take as many as 32 actions to cancel. If a customer tries to proceed with cancellation, Uber can require them to say why they want to cancel, urge them to pause their membership or, if that failed, present them with offers to stay. Some users are told they have to contact customer support to cancel but are given no way to contact them; others claim that Uber charged them for another billing cycle after they requested cancellation and were waiting to hear back from customer support.

The FTC alleges that the company's deceptive billing and cancellation practices violate the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA), which requires online retailers to clearly disclose the terms of the service they are selling, obtain consumers' consent before charging them for a service, and provide a simple way to cancel a recurring subscription.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 2-0-1 with Commissioner Mark R. Meador recused. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.

The lead attorneys on this matter are Stephanie Liebner, James Doty, and Paul Mezan in the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.

***

Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/04/ftc-takes-action-against-uber-deceptive-billing-cancellation-practices

CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment on 24/7 Trading

WASHINGTON, April 21 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following enforcement news release:

* * *

CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment on 24/7 Trading

# Release Number 9068-25

#

April 21, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Divisions of Market Oversight, Clearing and Risk, and Market Participants today issued a Request for Comment to better inform them on the potential uses, benefits, and risks of trading on a 24/7 basis in the derivatives markets the CFTC regulates.

"As I have long said, the CFTC must take a forward-looking approach to ... Show Full Article

Existing Customer Login

Federal Regulatory Agencies

Featured Stories