LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v SHAHRYAR SOROOSH Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-15141, CourtCode: DIS, CourtName: STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,, Defendant: Shahryar Soroosh, Plaintiff: SEC, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-15141, Soroosh, Octel Stock, Commission, Accounts, Complaint, Alleges, Securities, Exchange Commission, District, Trading, Sold, Shares, Brokerage Accounts, Option Contracts, Shahryar Soroosh, United States District, States District Court, Northern District, California, Separate Brokerage Accounts, Emergency, Announcements, Violating, Preceding, Common Shares, Prohibitions, Employee Trading, Prior, Earnings Announcements , ContentID: 120242917

Case Documents
1 1996-10-30 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 106011
2 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC LITIGATION RELEASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
OCTEL STOCK
COMMISSION
ACCOUNTS
COMPLAINT
ALLEGES
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
DISTRICT
TRADING
SOLD
SHARES
BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS
OPTION CONTRACTS
SHAHRYAR SOROOSH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT
CALIFORNIA
SEPARATE BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS
EMERGENCY
ANNOUNCEMENTS
BUSINESS
VIOLATING
PRECEDING
COMMON SHARES
PROHIBITIONS
EMPLOYEE TRADING
PRIOR
EARNINGS ANNOUNCEMENTS






==========================================START OF PAGE 1======


             U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Litigation Release No. 15141 / October 30, 1996

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. SHAHRYAR SOROOSH United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
No. C-96-3933-VRW.

     The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint
against Shahryar Soroosh, a software engineer at Octel
Communications Corp. ("Octel"), alleging that Soroosh engaged in
massive illegal insider trading in three separate brokerage
accounts just before the company's announcement last Thursday
which caused the price of Octel stock to drop more than 35% of
its value the next day.  The Commission alleged that the Soroosh
stood to profit more than $500,000 through his illegal trading.

     The Commission obtained an emergency order freezing
Soroosh's assets in the three brokerage accounts pending a
hearing on Thursday, October 31, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. (P.S.T.)
concerning the Commission's request for a temporary restraining
order and other emergency relief.

     The complaint alleges that on October 24, 1996, after the
close of the market, Octel announced that a software upgrade
would be delayed three to six months, which the news media
reported could reduce revenues by $20 to $40 million in Octel's
second fiscal quarter ending December 31, 1996 and third fiscal
quarter ending March 31, 1997.  The next day Octel stock tumbled
from $24.50 per share to $15.75 per share--a 35.8% drop.  The
Commission alleged that Soroosh knew about the delay of the
software release when he traded.

     The complaint alleges that Soroosh traded through at least
three separate brokerage accounts up to the day before the
announcement.  In one account, between October 18 and October 23,
Soroosh sold short 18,000 shares of Octel stock, and on October
21 he purchased 40 put option contracts.  Between October 8 and
October 23, in a second account, Soroosh sold short an additional
SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. SHAHRYAR SOROOSH United States District Court for the
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Shahryar Soroosh, a software
  • The Commission obtained an emergency order freezing Soroosh's assets in the three brokerage
  • The complaint alleges that Soroosh traded through at least three separate brokerage accounts
  • In one account, between October 18 and October 23, Soroosh sold short 18,000 shares of Octel
  • In total, by the close of business on October 24, 1996, the day preceding Octel's
  • The complaint also alleges that Soroosh's trading violated Octel's prohibitions on employee
  • The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
  •    |