Defendant Name: Deerfield Capital Corp.

Defendant Type: Public Company
SIC Code: 6798
CUSIP: 24433130

Initial Case Details

Legal Case Name In the Matter of Deerfield Capital Corp. and Danielle Valkner, CPA
First Document Date 02-Feb-2011
Initial Filing Format Administrative Action
File Number 3-14216
Allegation Type Issuer Reporting and Disclosure
AAER 3237

Violations Alleged

Exchange Act
• Rule 12b-20
• Sec 13(a)
• Rule 13a-1
• Rule 13a-13
• Sec 13(b)(2)(A)
• Sec 13(b)(2)(B)
Additionally, Danielle Valkner is alleged to have caused Deerfield Capital Corp.'s violation of Rule 12b-20 of the Exchange Act.
Danielle Valkner is alleged to have caused Deerfield Capital Corp.'s violation of Sec 13(a) of the Exchange Act.
Danielle Valkner is alleged to have caused Deerfield Capital Corp.'s violation of Rule 13a-1 of the Exchange Act.
Danielle Valkner is alleged to have caused Deerfield Capital Corp.'s violation of Rule 13a-13 of the Exchange Act.
Danielle Valkner is alleged to have caused Deerfield Capital Corp.'s violation of Sec 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act.

Resolutions

First Resolution Date 02-Feb-2011
Headline Total Penalty and Disgorgement $1,277,070

Related Documents:

34-63818 02-Feb-2011 Administrative Proceeding
Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order
On February 2, 2011, the SEC filed settled administrative proceeding against Deerfield Capital Corp. and Danielle Valkner, CPA. According to the SEC: "control provisions of the Exchange Act in connection with three transactions involving securities issued by a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ('REMIC') - an investment vehicle used for the pooling of mortgage loans and the issuance of mortgage-backed securities. In each of the transactions, one of which occurred in December 2005 and two in March 2006, Deerfield Capital improperly recognized a gain from the purported sales of the REMIC while simultaneously purporting to purchase a "new" security (or 're-REMIC') representing nearly the same rights to nearly the same stream of payments. Deerfield Capital's recognition of a gain on the sale of the REMIC was contrary to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ('GAAP')."

Other Defendants in Action:

Danielle Valkner