On October 19, 2011, the SEC instituted settled administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Credit Suisse Alternative Capital, LLC ("CSAC") (f/k/a Credit Suisse Alternative Capital, Inc.), Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC ("CSAM"), and Samir H. Bhatt. According to the SEC: "This matter involves violations of federal securities laws by CSAC, the predecessor of CSAM, and Bhatt, a former registered representative and portfolio manager at CSAC, in connection with the structuring and marketing of a largely synthetic collateralized debt obligation ('CDO') known as Class V Funding III ('Class V III'). The investment portfolio for Class V III consisted primarily of credit default swaps ('CDS') referencing other CDO securities with collateral consisting primarily of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities ('RMBS'). As a result, the value of Class V III and its underlying investment portfolio was tied to subprime mortgages and the United States residential housing market. CDO-squareds such as Class V III were designed to, and did, provide leveraged exposure to the housing market and therefore magnified the severity of losses suffered by investors when the United States housing market experienced a downturn."

On July 3, 2012, the SEC ordered that "the Division's request for an extension of time until March 15, 2013 to submit a proposed plan of distribution is granted." According to the SEC: "the Division states that the violations in this matter arise in connection with the same conduct alleged in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the 'Citigroup action' or the 'civil action') (11-cv-7387), a settled case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which settlement was rejected by the Court and the case set for trial on July 16, 2012." The SEC stated: "The Division intends that the funds paid by the Respondents in this administrative proceeding be combined with any funds paid by Citigroup Global Markets in the civil action for distribution to injured investors once a final judgment in the civil action is entered. Because Credit Suisse is unable to plan for the distribution of the combined funds until after a final judgment is entered in the civil action, the Division seeks an extension of time to submit the proposed plan of distribution until after a final judgment in the civil action has been entered."

On May 22, 2013, the SEC ordered that "the Division's request for an extension of time until September 16, 2013 to submit a proposed plan of distribution is granted." According to the SEC: "the Division states that the violations in this matter arise in connection with the same conduct alleged in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the 'Citigroup action' or the 'civil action') (11-cv-7387), a settled case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which settlement was rejected by the Court and the case set for trial on July 16, 2012." The SEC stated: "The Division intends that the funds paid by the Respondents in this administrative proceeding be combined with any funds paid by Citigroup Global Markets in the civil action for distribution to injured investors once a final judgment in the civil action is entered. Because Credit Suisse is unable to plan for the distribution of the combined funds until after a final judgment is entered in the civil action, the Division seeks an extension of time to submit the proposed plan of distribution until after a final judgment in the civil action has been entered."

On September 13, 2013 the SEC ordered that the Division's request for an extension of time until March 14, 2014, to submit a proposed plan of distribution is granted.

On March 19, 2014, the SEC ordered, "the Division's request for an extension of time until September 15, 2014, to submit a proposed plan of distribution is granted."

On October 31, 2014, the SEC ordered that "the Division's request for an extension of time until April 15, 2015 to submit a proposed plan of distribution is granted." According to the SEC: "the Division states that the violations in this matter arise in connection with the same conduct alleged in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the 'Citigroup action' or the 'civil action') (11-cv-7387), a settled case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which settlement was rejected by the Court and the case set for trial on July 16, 2012.... On August 5, 2014, final judgment was entered by the Southern District of New York." The SEC stated: "Now that the final judgment has been entered, the Division states that additional time is needed to determine the feasibility of a distribution to injured investors as well as the appropriate procedure and methodology to utilize."

On April 20, 2015, the SEC ordered that "the Division's request for an extension of time until July 14, 2015 to submit a proposed plan of distribution is granted." According to the SEC: "the Division states that the violations in this matter arise in connection with the same conduct alleged in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the 'Citigroup action' or the 'civil action') (11-cv-7387), a settled case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which settlement was rejected by the Court and the case set for trial on July 16, 2012.... On August 5, 2014, final judgment was entered by the Southern District of New York." The SEC stated: "Now that the final judgment has been entered, the Division states that additional time is needed to determine the feasibility of a distribution to injured investors as well as the appropriate procedure and methodology to utilize."

On February 3, 2016, the Commission granted the Division of Enforcement's request for an extension of time until July 14, 2016 to submit a proposed plan of distribution. According to the SEC, the violations in the matter arose in connection with the same conduct as in SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (11-cv-07387) where final judgment was entered by the Southern District of New York on August 5, 2014. The SEC stated: "the Division states that additional time is needed to draft an action memorandum requesting special treatment provided under Rule 1102(a) to transfer funds paid in this administrative proceeding to the district court without need to publish a plan of distribution."

Notice of Proposed Plan of Distribution and Opportunity for Comment in response to the Commission's October 19, 2011 Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 203(e), 203(f), and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and Cease-and-Desist Orders.

On August 26, 2016, the SEC issued a Proposed Plan of Distribution in this matter.

On February 9, 2017 the SEC approved the Plan of Distribution proposed on August 24, 2016 and ordered the disbursement of the "CSAC Fair Fund [...] to the court registry account established in the CGMI Action, for distribution to harmed investors in accordance with a plan of distribution to be approved by the court in the CGMI Action."

The Commission stated that "Commission staff will transfer the CSAC Fair Fund of approximately $2.55 million to the CGMI Action to be combined with the Fund of approximately $285 million for distribution to harmed investors in accordance with a distribution plan to be established in the CGMI Action."

On June 30, 2017, the SEC announced a Name Change of Appointed Tax Administrator, and amended the Omnibus Order, beginning June 2017 and for calendar year 2018, to replace all references to Damasco with "Miller Kaplan Arase LLP which acquired Damasco & Associates LLP" in order to reflect Damasco's name change.