U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 20147 / June 7, 2007

SEC v. Pension Fund of America L.C., et al., Case No. 05-CIV-20863 (S.D. of FL)

Final Judgments of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Entered Against Defendants Pension Fund of America L.C., PFA Assurance Group, Ltd., PFA International, Ltd., Claren TPA, LLC, Luis M. Cornide, and Robert De la Riva

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on May 21, 2007, the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, entered final judgments of permanent injunction and other relief against Pension Fund of America, LC, PFA Assurance Group, Ltd., PFA International, Ltd., Claren TPA, LLC (PFA entities), Luis M. Cornide and Robert De la Riva (collectively Defendants) for their involvement in an offering fraud that targeted Latin American investors.

The Defendants, without admitting or denying the Complaint's allegations, consented to the entry of an order enjoining them from future violations of 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. The final judgments against Cornide and De la Riva also enjoin them from future violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. In addition, both Defendants agreed to turn over several million dollars of assets apiece to the Court-appointed Receiver to partially satisfy their obligation to disgorge ill-gotten gains they received from the conduct alleged in the Complaint. Both Defendants turned over their homesteads to the Receiver, who will sell the houses and use the proceeds to help satisfy disgorgement. Previously, Cornide and De la Riva had turned over assets worth $2,691,743.71 and $2,441,351.55, respectively. Based on those payments and sworn representations of their financial condition, the Court waived a portion of disgorgement and did not impose a civil penalty against both Cornide and De la Riva. The Commission dismissed its disgorgement and civil penalty claims against the PFA entities because they are under the control of the Receiver.

For more information on earlier actions in this case, see Litigation Release Nos. 19161 (March 30, 2005) and 19745 (June 28, 2006).

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2007/lr20147.htm