Trending publication

February 1, 2026 | Legal Update

The Nutter Securities Enforcement Update is a periodic update of noteworthy recent securities enforcement activity, settlements, decisions, and charges. We provide brief summaries that highlight recent enforcement action filings and developments to help identify enforcement trends, changes in the law, new theories, and new areas of enforcement focus. For more information on these cases or about how they may impact you, contact your Nutter attorney.

New Leadership

New SEC Enforcement Director Margaret Ryan gave her first public address recently. She reaffirmed Chairman Atkins’s promise that the Division will provide a “transparent and appropriate process,” particularly through the Wells process. She also stressed a “back to the basics” focus on high-impact cases involving investor harm and misconduct that “undermines market integrity,” and she signaled openness to “thoughtful resolutions” in appropriate compliance failure cases rather than pursuing enforcement solely for technical violations.

The SEC also recently filled several key leadership positions: Rusty McGranahan was named SEC General Counsel. McGranahan recently served as General Counsel of the GSA and previously was GC of a wealth management firm with just under $100 billion in AUM. Paul Tzur was named Deputy Director of Enforcement, with responsibility for the Chicago, Atlanta, and Miami Regional Offices. Tzur is a former AUSA in Chicago. David Morrell was named Deputy Director of Enforcement, with responsibility for the New York, Boston, and Philadelphia Regional Offices. Morrell is a former Jones Day partner.

Remedies

SEC v. Spartan Securities, et al., No. 22-13129 (11th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026) – On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit upheld a securities fraud judgment and the disgorgement and penalties ordered by the district court. The defendants – a broker-dealer, a related transfer agent, and their principals – were charged for their roles in two microcap securities fraud schemes in which the issuers were shell companies without operations or assets. The jury found them liable under one of the 14 causes of action asserted by the SEC, for making false statements to FINRA and DTC to enable the shell companies to become tradable, in violation of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that (1) civil penalties were not time-barred because the conduct pertinent to five of the issuers occurred within the five-year limitations period of 18 USC § 2462; (2) disgorgement to the Treasury was permitted by Exchange Act § 21(d)(5); (3) the disgorgement of fees paid to the transfer agent was causally connected to the wrongdoing; and (4) the defendants were not entitled to a separate jury trial on the facts necessary to award penalties. Judge Tjoflat dissented from the judgment on the separate ground that the SEC complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading.

SEC v. Govil, No. 21-CV-6150 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2026) – On remand of a Second Circuit decision on disgorgement issues, the district court determined that disgorgement was justified by harm to victims. The court specifically found that both Cemtrex, the company founded by the defendant, and Cemtrex investors suffered harm from the founder’s misappropriation of about $7.3 million in proceeds of a Cemtrex securities offering. As directed by the Second Circuit, the district court reduced the $7.3 million by the value of securities returned to the company by the founder. Judgment was entered for about $6.7m in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest of about $3m.

Investment Advisers/Investment Companies

SEC v. Gao and Shima Capital Management LLC, Lit. Rel. No. 26430 (Dec. 3, 2025) – In a settled matter, the SEC charged a Puerto Rico-based RIA and its owner with making false and misleading statements while raising more than $169.9 million from investors. The SEC alleged that the adviser raised more $158 million for a crypto-asset-focused venture fund using a marketing pitch deck that misrepresented the adviser’s track record. When the adviser learned that a news article would be published about discrepancies in the pitch deck, the owner attributed the discrepancies to clerical errors. The SEC also alleged that the adviser’s owner raised an additional $11.9 million, claiming he could purchase crypto tokens at a 20-40% discount. The SEC alleges that he purchased the tokens at a substantial discount, and then sold them to the fund at a higher price, keeping $1.9 million in profit for himself. Charges under Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and Advisers Act Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8. Remedies against the adviser’s owner included disgorgement of $3.9m, a conduct-based injunction, officer-and-director bar, and penalties to be resolved upon a motion by the SEC. The RIA consented to a settlement permanently enjoining it from future violations of the charged provisions and ordering prompt compliance with certain undertakings.

In the Matter of Engaged Capital, LLC, Rel. IA-6940 (Jan. 16, 2026) – In a settled matter, a registered investment adviser was charged with failing to disclose conflicts of interest when it invested client assets in a SPAC transaction without disclosing that the firm, its personnel, and other clients had previously invested in the SPAC. Charges under Advisers Act Section 206(2). Remedies included cease-and-desist, censure, and a $200k penalty.

In the Matter of FamilyWealth Advisers, LLC, Rel. IA-6941 (Jan. 20, 2026) – In a settled matter, two related registered investment advisers were charged with including improper liability disclaimer language in their client agreements. The client agreements also allegedly permitted the firms to withdraw or direct disbursements from client accounts, which caused the firms to be deemed to have custody of the assets, but the firms failed to obtain the independent accountant examinations required by the Advisers Act Custody Rule. Charges under Advisers Act Sections 205(a)(2), 206(2) and 206(4), and Rules 206(4)-2 and 206(4)-7. Remedies included cease-and-desist, censure, and penalties of $85k and $65k for the two firms.

SEC v. Sofia, Lit. Rel. 26463 (Jan. 23, 2026) – In a litigated matter, the SEC charged an individual unregistered investment adviser with making material misrepresentations to at least three advisory clients. The SEC alleges the adviser lied about his professional background and experience, falsely guaranteed that the clients would not lose money, and made misleading statements about his purported development and use of proprietary trading software. The adviser also allegedly convinced his clients to provide him with direct access to their brokerage accounts so that he could place trades on their behalf and caused client losses of over $1.6 million. Charges under Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and 206(2). Remedies sought include injunctive relief and civil penalties.

Broker-Dealers

Re: Barclays Capital, Inc., FINRA No. 2023078671001 (Dec. 2, 2025) – In a settled matter, a broker-dealer firm was charged with supervisory failures concerning the timely collection and review of employee outside brokerage account statements for prohibited trading activity. With respect to employee outside brokerage accounts for which the firm did not receive an electronic feed (about 7% of all outside employee accounts), FINRA charged that the firm failed to collect or timely review approximately 8,200 account statements over a one year period, and that employees executed 161 trades without obtaining pre-approval. Charges under FINRA Rules 2010 and 3110. Remedies included censure and a $325k fine.

SEC v. Virtu Financial Inc. et al., Lit. Rel. No. 26427 (Dec. 3, 2025) – In a settlement of a litigated matter, the SEC charged Virtu for failing to establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures designed to protect the confidentiality of customers’ trade information, including customer-identifying information, security name, type of trade, execution price, and volume. According to the SEC, essentially anyone at Virtu could access the database of customer trade information using a widely known and frequently shared generic username and password, which could be used simultaneously by multiple users. Virtu also allegedly failed to track who logged into the database or what information was extracted by its proprietary traders. Charges under Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) and Exchange Act Section 15(g). Remedies included a civil monetary penalty of $2.5m.

Re: Securities America, Inc., FINRA No. 2021069337301 (Dec. 3, 2025) – In a settled matter, FINRA charged a broker-dealer firm with supervisory failures and violations of Reg BI because the firm’s written supervisory procedures did not establish any procedures or guidelines for representatives or supervisors in reviewing switches of commissionable Class A mutual fund shares between fund families or sales of Class A shares after short-term holding periods. The firm was charged with failing to supervise over 1,000 switches and 2,000 short-term sales of Class A shares. Charges under FINRA Rules 2111 and 3110, and Exchange Act Rule 15l-1. Remedies included censure, restitution of approximately $2m, and a $1m fine.

Global Research Analyst Settlement, Lit. Rel. 26434 (Dec. 5, 2025) – In a modification of the terms of 2003 and 2004 settlements with 12 broker-dealers, the SEC consented to the firms’ motions to terminate certain undertakings. The undertakings addressed disclosure and other steps designed to mitigate conflicts of interest between equity research analysts and investment banking personnel. The firms moved to terminate these undertakings based in part on FINRA’s subsequent adoption of Rule 2241 (Research Analysts and Research Reports), which addressed the same types of conflicts of interest. Without adopting or joining the firms’ motions, the SEC stated that it believes “modification of the Judgment is in the public interest.”

SEC v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Lit. Rel. No. 26435 (Dec. 11, 2025) – In a settlement of a litigated matter, the SEC had charged a firm that acts as a broker-dealer, investment adviser, and municipal advisor with selling securities in municipal bond offerings on the limited offering exemption when it had not satisfied the exemption requirements because it lacked a reasonable belief that broker-dealer and investment adviser purchasers were buying for their own accounts. Charges under Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12, Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rules G-17 and G-27, and Exchange Act Section 15B(c)(1). Remedies include injunctive relief and a $1.2m civil penalty.

Department of Enforcement v. Boustead Securities, LLC, et al., FINRA Disc. Proc. 2022075185901 (Jan. 15, 2026) – In a disciplinary proceeding, FINRA charged two broker-dealer firms and one individual with failing to implement a reasonable anti-money laundering program tailored to the firms’ business, in particular the underwriting of public offerings of foreign-based microcap issuers and purchases by issuer-referred customers. The firms were also charged with failure to supervise, failure to disclose underwriting compensation, and books and records violations. Charges under FINRA Rules 3310, 3110, 4511, 5110, 5130, and 2010. On the same day, the firms sued FINRA in federal court, alleging that the regulator fraudulently caused the firms to withdraw NASDAQ membership applications without authority, causing the firms to lose underwriting opportunities.

Department of Enforcement v. Sutter Securities, LLC, et al., FINRA Disc. Proc. 2022075185902 (Jan. 20, 2026) – In a disciplinary proceeding, FINRA charged a broker-dealer and a principal with failing to implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with Reg. BI’s Care Obligation regarding excessive trading. A former registered representative allegedly recommended 2,217 trades in two accounts of a retired 89-year-old customer, resulting in trading costs in excess of $2.9 million and net losses of $1.2 million.

Securities Offerings

SEC v. Rai, et al., Lit. Rel. 26461 (Jan. 15, 2026) – In a litigated matter, the SEC charged an individual and a series of companies he formed with making misrepresentations to investors and misappropriating at least $10.6 million in investor funds. According to the SEC, the individual and his companies told investors their primary business was developing a method and device to filter “circulating tumor cells” out of a patient’s bloodstream, and made numerous statements about how investors’ funds would be used for research and development and the clinical trials necessary to obtain approval to make and sell a medical device in the United States and Europe. The SEC alleges that, in reality, the individual misappropriated at least $10.6 million of investor funds for his personal use, including to pay about $2.3 million he owed on his personal credit cards, to pay at least $1 million in unrelated debts incurred by one of his business associates, to purchase $850,000 worth of luxury vehicles for an “elite social club” he attempted to start, and to fund $5.1 million in cash withdrawals. The SEC further alleges that a co-defendant substantially assisted in misappropriating investor funds by signing a document that she knew contained false representations in connection with obtaining a personal loan with investor funds pledged as collateral, and acquiescing in the use of investor funds to repay the personal loan. A separate relief defendant is alleged to have received ill-gotten gains in connection with the fraudulent scheme. Charges under Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts announced parallel criminal charges against the consultant.

SEC v. Motil et al., Lit. Rel. 26462 (Jan. 16, 2026) – In a settlement of a previously-filed matter, the SEC charged a real estate podcaster with defrauding investors of millions of dollars with promises of low-risk, high return promissory notes purportedly fully collateralized by first mortgages on homes located throughout Ohio. According to the SEC, the promissory notes were not, in fact, fully collateralized by first mortgages, and the podcaster used investor money to make Ponzi payments to prior investors and to pay personal expenses. The podcaster consented to the entry of the judgment that included injunctive relief, association bars, and disgorgement of $2.97m plus prejudgment interest, which shall be deemed satisfied by the restitution order entered against the podcaster in the parallel criminal case where he was previously sentenced to 70 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution of $5m.

SEC v. Appalakutty, et al., Lit. Rel. No. 26472 (Jan. 29, 2026) – In a litigated matter, the SEC charged a California resident and his business entities with defrauding at least 100 investors of $37 million. The SEC alleged that the California resident solicited investors at his Hindu temple and misrepresented to investors that their funds would be used to purchase stocks of well-known public companies at a discount, purchase stocks of pre-IPO companies, or invest the money to generate returns for investors with annual rates ranging from 8% to 62.5%. However, the investment activities were fictitious, and no stocks of public or pre-IPO companies were purchased nor were any investment activity carried out on behalf of investors. Instead, the investors’ money was used to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors and to fund his software startup.

Issuer Reporting/Audit and Accounting

In the Matter of Ankit Mahadevia, et al., Rel. 33-11400 (Jan. 16, 2026) – In a settled matter, the former CEO and CFO of a publicly-traded biopharmaceutical company were charged with making misleading statements about the efficacy of the company’s lead drug candidate. As charged, the CEO and CFO continued to state that the drug achieved its primary efficacy endpoint under the drug trial protocol even after the FDA expressed specific concerns about its efficacy; the FDA later determined that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint. Charges under Securities Act Section 17(a)(2). Remedies included cease-and-desist and penalties of $112,500 for the CEO and $75k for the CFO.

SEC v. DiMatteo, et al., Lit. Rel. 26464 (Jan. 22, 2026) – In a partially-settled matter, Lottery.com and its non-public predecessor and four of the companies’ principal officers were charged in a scheme to overstate revenues in advance of a SPAC transaction. The company allegedly booked non-existent revenue that inflated the company’s revenue by 300%, by engaging in bogus sales of advertising credits and a circular sale of valueless customer data followed by overpayment for two Mexican businesses in the same amount. Charges under Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 14(a), and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9. Additional charges against the company under Exchange Act 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B). Two of the executives consented to the entry of judgment, including injunctive relief, officer-and-director bars, and disgorgement and penalties to be determined by the court.

SEC v. Illingworth et al., Lit. Rel. 26468 (Jan. 27, 2026) – In a settled matter, the SEC alleged that a public company and its founder hid that most of the company’s revenue was generated from the sales to related parties that were secretly controlled by the founder in order to deceive investors about the company’s finances. The company’s related party transactions allegedly accounted for 65% to 89% of their total revenues. Separately, the founder, through his private company, engaged in approximately $11 million worth of sale-leaseback transactions that constituted unregistered offers and sales of securities. Charges under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Section 5 of the Securities Act. Remedies in the consent judgment included permanent injunctions against both parties, plus a civil penalty of $100k, a five-year officer-and-director bar, and a five-year penny stock bar against the founder.

SEC v. Mathews, et al., Lit. Rel. 26469 (Jan. 27, 2026) – In a litigated matter, the SEC charged the former CEO and CFO of a now-defunct global data intelligence company with inflating revenue in a financial accounting and disclosure fraud scheme. The SEC alleged that the CEO and CFO engaged in a “round-trip accounting scheme” to overstate reported revenue by about 27%. This scheme involved the company and its largest customer exchanging inflated invoices. According to the SEC, the executives also fabricated documents or made misrepresentations to conceal the scheme from auditors. Charges included violations of Securities Act Section 17(a), and Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2.

SEC v. Luthar, Lit. Rel. No. 26470 (Jan. 27, 2026) – In a litigated matter, the SEC charged the former CFO of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company with directing improper adjustments to shift operating profit to a key business segment, Nutrition, from ADM’s other business segments to help Nutrition meet publicly-projected targets. These adjustments included retroactive rebates and price changes not ordinarily available to ADM’s third-party customers and were basically one-sided transfers of operating profit to Nutrition “with the goal of making it appear that Nutrition was meeting its performance projections.” Charges under Securities Act Section 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rules 10b-5 and 12a-14, related aiding and abetting charges.

In the Matter of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Rel. 33-11403 (Jan. 27, 2026) – In a settlement related to the financial reporting violations charge in Luthar, above, ADM and two executives, the President of Nutrition and the corporate CFO, were charged with violations of Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13. Remedies included: cease-and-desist for all respondents; a three-year officer-and-director bar, disgorgement of $330k plus prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $125k for the President of Nutrition; disgorgement of $450k plus prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $75k for the CFO; and a civil penalty of $40m for the corporation.

Insider Trading

SEC v. Shoukat, et al., Lit. Rel. 26458 (Jan. 6, 2022) – In a litigated matter, the SEC charged three brothers with allegedly engaging in market manipulation schemes involving the securities of two biotechnology companies and, together with three associates, carrying out an insider trading scheme that the SEC alleges generated approximately $41 million in profits. According to the SEC, in one scheme, two of the brothers impersonated physicians to obtain confidential clinical trial information and misused patient identities on online forums to publish falsified trial results, which allegedly inflated the issuer’s stock price. In a separate scheme involving a different biotechnology company, the SEC alleges that the brothers traded on acquisition-related information and, after the transaction stalled, allegedly threatened company leadership and issued a false press release announcing a fictitious partnership allowing them to sell shares at inflated prices. The SEC also alleges that, over several years, an investment banker tipped one of the brothers with material nonpublic information regarding multiple potential acquisitions, who then shared the information with the other brothers and additional traders. Charges under Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and, as to most of the charged individuals, Section Exchange Act 14(e) and Rule 14e-3 thereunder. Parallel criminal charges were announced by federal prosecutors.

SEC v. Wang and Precision Clinical Consulting, LLC, Lit. Rel. 26460 (Jan. 14, 2026) – In a litigated matter, the SEC charged a consultant and his consulting company with insider trading in the stock of a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company. According to the SEC, the consultant allegedly became aware of positive clinical trial results for the biopharmaceutical company’s flagship multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma drug while he was performing biostatistical consulting work for the company and had access to the drug’s clinical trial data. The consultant allegedly purchased shares in the biopharmaceutical company while aware of material nonpublic information relating to the clinical trial. The SEC alleges that after the biopharmaceutical company announced the positive results on December 12, 2023, the consultant made $489,739 in realized and unrealized profits from his position. Charges under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

In the Matter of Song Yuan, Rel. 34-104637 (Jan. 21, 2026) – In a settled matter, the SEC charged an employee of a China-based tire company with trading on nonpublic information regarding the upcoming acquisition of Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. The SEC alleges that the employee acted as a translator in videoconferences between Cooper’s CEO and a senior executive at the Chinese tire company who was also the translator’s close relative, and had a duty of trust and confidence to both Cooper and the family member. Charges under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Remedies included cease-and-desist, disgorgement of approximately $65k plus prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of approximately $65k.

In the Matter of Mohit Verma, Rel. 34-104651 (Jan. 21, 2026) – In a settled matter, the SEC charged a research scientist at ImmunityBio, Inc. with trading in advance of the company’s public disclosure that the FDA had delayed approval of the company’s cancer therapy. The scientist purchased out-of-the-money put options before the announcement and later sold them for a gain of about $41,000. Charges under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Remedies included cease-and-desist, disgorgement of approximately $41k plus prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of approximately $41k.

SEC v. Van de Grift, Lit. Rel. 26473 (Jan. 30, 2026) – In a settled matter, the SEC charged a day-trader and certified public accountant as well as his close friend with insider trading. The SEC alleged that the close friend tipped the day-trader and certified public accountant with nonpublic information about Francisco Partners’ potential acquisition of Verifone Systems, Inc. Based on this tip, the day-trader and certified public accountant purchased 60,000 shares of Verifone stock and then sold all of these shares the day after the public announcement of the acquisition agreement, leading to a profit of approximately $300,000. Remedies under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, a five-year officer-and-director bar, disgorgement of $298k plus prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $298k.

Cryptocurrency

SEC v. Vo, Lit. Rel. No. 26448, (Dec. 17, 2025) – In a litigated matter, the SEC charged the founder and CEO of a bitcoin mining business with orchestrating a fraud that raised more than $95.6 million from approximately 6,400 investors and misappropriated nearly half of those funds. The SEC alleges that the founder-CEO solicited investors by falsely describing the nature of the company’s bitcoin mining operations, its assets, and the use of investor funds, including by selling “Hosting Agreements” that purported to provide passive income from bitcoin mining while offering far more mining rigs than the company actually operated. According to the SEC, the founder-CEO diverted approximately $48.5 million of investor money for personal use, including gambling and gifts to family members, before fleeing the United States. Charges under Securities Act Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

SEC v. Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang, and Nishad Singh, Lit. Rel. No. 26450, (Dec. 19, 2025) – In a settled matter, the SEC charged senior executives of FTX and its affiliated hedge fund Alameda Research with a crypto-fraud that raised more than $1.8 billion from investors. The SEC alleges that investors were falsely told that FTX was a safe crypto trading platform with robust automated risk controls and that Alameda was merely another customer, when Alameda was secretly exempted from risk mitigation measures and granted an unlimited line of credit funded by FTX customer assets. According to the SEC, executives created and implemented software code that enabled the diversion of customer funds to Alameda, while another executive knowingly used misappropriated customer assets for trading and other purposes, including venture investments and loans to FTX executives. Charges under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Securities Act Section 17(a). Remedies include permanent injunctions, five-year conduct-based injunctions, and officer-and-director bars ranging from eight to 10 years, subject to court approval.

SEC v. Morocoin Tech Corp., et al., Lit. Rel. No. 26453 (Dec. 22, 2025) – In a litigated matter, the SEC charged purported crypto asset trading platforms and investment clubs with defrauding retail investors of at least $14 million in an investment confidence scam. The SEC alleges that the purported investment clubs operated over WhatsApp and solicited investors to join the clubs with ads on social media. The clubs gained investors’ confidence with supposedly AI-generated investment tips before luring investors to open and fund accounts on purported crypto asset trading platforms Morocoin, Berge, and Cirkor, which falsely claimed to have government licenses. The investment clubs and platforms then allegedly offered “Security Token Offerings” that were purportedly issued by legitimate businesses. In reality, no trading took place on the trading platforms, which were fake, and the Security Token Offerings and their purported issuing companies did not exist, according to the complaint. When investors tried to withdraw their funds, according to the complaint, the defendants further defrauded victims by demanding that they pay advance fees. In all, the defendants misappropriated at least $14 million from U.S.-based retail investors and funneled those funds overseas through a web of bank accounts and crypto asset wallets. Charges under Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and disgorgement with prejudgment interest.

SEC v. Genesis Global Capital LLC, et al., Lit. Rel. 26465 (Jan. 23, 2026) – In resolution of a litigated matter, the SEC and defendants filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of charges that the Gemini crypto lending business had engaged in an unregistered securities offering in violation of Securities Act Section 5. Gemini had offered customers the opportunity to earn interest for lending their crypto assets, but the business went bankrupt in a 2022 market downturn. The SEC release noted the “100 percent in-kind return of Gemini Earn investors’ crypto assets” following the bankruptcy, as well as “state and regulatory settlements involving Gemini related to the Gemini Earn program.” The release further noted that the Commission was taking this action “in the exercise of its discretion,” and that it “does not necessarily reflect the Commission’s position on any other case,” as stated in the joint stipulation.

(NSEU 26-01)