Defendant Name: ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc.

Defendant Type: Public Company
SIC Code: 6719
CUSIP: 60786L20

Initial Case Details

Legal Case Name In the Matter of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler, Steven G. Crane, and Catherine L. Venable
First Document Date 15-Mar-2016
Initial Filing Format Administrative Action
File Number 3-17171
Allegation Type Issuer Reporting and Disclosure
AAER 3758

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)
Securities Act
Sec 17(a)(2)
Sec 17(a)(3)
Additionally, Catherine L. Venable is alleged to have caused ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. 's violation of Sec 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act.


First Resolution Date 15-Mar-2016
Headline Total Penalty and Disgorgement

See Related Documents

Related Documents:

33-10055-s 15-Mar-2016 Administrative Summary
SEC Orders $1.6 Million Penalty, Plus Executive Compensation Clawbacks for Company that Overstated Earnings (3-17171)
On March 15, 2016, the SEC issued an Administrative Summary. The SEC stated that it "charged a Massachusetts-based supply chain and logistics company, ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., with improperly reporting millions of dollars in income over a five and one-half year period."
33-10055 15-Mar-2016 Administrative Proceeding
Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order
On March 15, 2016, the SEC instituted settled cease-and-desist proceedings against ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler, Steven G. Crane, and Catherine L. Venable. According to the SEC: "ModusLink is a Massachusetts-based company that provides supply chain and logistics services to other companies. In providing products and services to its clients, ModusLink routinely purchased products and services from third-party vendors on behalf of its clients. ModusLink also routinely obtained rebates from vendors. In numerous instances, and without a sufficient basis to conclude that it was entitled to do so, ModusLink kept rebates that should have benefited certain ModusLink clients, which were contractually entitled to them under cost-plus and pass-through contracts. In some other instances, ModusLink marked-up the prices charged by the vendors and billed the higher price to certain ModusLink clients, also in contravention of their contracts. ModusLink had no legal entitlement to these rebates and mark-ups and inappropriately included these sums in computing and reporting its revenue and net income in its financial statements filed with the Commission."

Other Defendants in Action: