BitGo Announces Confidential Submission of Draft Registration Statement to SEC for Proposed Initial Public Offering
This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Any offers, solicitations or offers to buy, or any sales of securities will be made in accordance with the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the 'Securities Act'). This announcement is being issued in accordance with Rule 135 under the Securities Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
2 minutes ago
- Business Wire
CFP Board Promotes Public Trust With 11 Actions
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board), a nonprofit organization with more than 100,000 CFP® professionals, today announced actions taken to uphold its ethical standards, imposing sanctions on 11 individuals. CFP Board is a professional body that has adopted a Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct (Code and Standards) that benefits and protects the public and advances financial planning as a distinct and valuable profession. The Code and Standards requires that a CFP® professional meet certain duties when providing professional services to a client, and to refrain from engaging in other misconduct that reflects adversely on their integrity or fitness as a certificant, on the CFP® marks or on the profession. CFP® professionals make a commitment to CFP Board to abide by the Code and Standards, and their compliance reinforces the integrity of the CFP Board certification marks. CFP Board does not guarantee a CFP® professional's services, but it may sanction a CFP® professional who fails to uphold their commitment. Information about how CFP Board addresses ethical issues involving CFP® professionals and those pursuing initial CFP® certification is available at At the public can verify an individual's CFP® certification status. CFP Board also provides links to other sources of information about CFP® professionals that may be more recent or that may contain information that has not led to CFP Board discipline and does not appear on CFP Board's website, such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's (FINRA's) BrokerCheck and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) Investment Adviser Public Disclosure databases for individuals who are subject to FINRA or SEC oversight. CFP Board is not a federal, state or self-regulatory organization, and it does not sanction financial services firms. The Public Sanctions on 11 Individuals STATE NAME LOCATION SANCTION Maryland Gordon S. Wallace, CFP® Annapolis Public Censure Florida Mark Monkarsh Tampa Suspension Illinois Robert D. Lyman Barrington Suspension Kentucky Michael H. Gross Louisville Suspension New Jersey Danny Z. Spiegel Ocean Suspension Oregon Timothy D. Clairmont Portland Suspension Texas Todd L. Luft The Woodlands Suspension California Brian P. Colla Corona Temporary Bar Florida Christopher A. Hynes Punta Gorda Temporary Bar North Carolina Basil Marchi Raleigh Temporary Bar Pennsylvania John A. Dougherty Blue Bell Revocation Expand PUBLIC CENSURE MARYLAND Gordon S. Wallace, CFP® (Annapolis, Maryland): In December 2024, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order imposing a public censure on Mr. Wallace for violating CFP Board's Code and Standards. The order cites a March 2023 Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) that Mr. Wallace entered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) in which he consented to a 10-day suspension and a $5,000 fine for violating FINRA Rule 2010, which requires registered persons, in the conduct of their business, to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. In the AWC, Mr. Wallace consented to findings that in late May 2021, he and others, at his direction, photographed electronic account information for approximately 135 customers in anticipation of joining another firm. The AWC states that Mr. Wallace retained the information — including customer names, birth dates, account numbers and Social Security numbers—until his new firm secured and returned the information unused. The former firm named Mr. Wallace and others in an arbitration that he resolved in a confidential settlement. The Commission found that Mr. Wallace violated Standards A.8.a, A.9.c and D.2.a of the Code and Standards, which state that a CFP® professional must comply with the laws, rules and regulations governing professional services; must take reasonable steps to protect the security of non-public personal information about any client; and will be subject to discipline by CFP Board for violating policies and procedures of the CFP® professional's firm. The Commission's order was effective January 20, 2025. Read the order: Case History 44120. SUSPENSION FLORIDA Mark Monkarsh (Tampa, Florida): In May 2023, CFP Board's Appeals Commission issued an order suspending Mr. Monkarsh's right to use the CFP Board certification marks for one year and one day based on his violation of Rule 6.5 of CFP Board's Rules of Conduct. The order affirmed a November 2022 decision by CFP Board's Disciplinary and Ethics Commission finding that Mr. Monkarsh had engaged in conduct reflecting adversely on their integrity or fitness as a certificant, on the CFP® marks or on the profession when he failed to pay or file timely returns for federal taxes he owed from 2011 to 2017. The November 2022 decision cites four federal tax liens totaling more than $577,000 issued against Mr. Monkarsh, who owed more than $1.13 million to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), including accrued interest and penalties. In its decision, the Appeals Commission found that the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission did not abuse its discretion when it deviated upward from the applicable sanction in the Sanction Guidelines (public censure) but did abuse its discretion by imposing a three-year suspension on Mr. Monkarsh. Mr. Monkarsh's suspension was effective from April 17, 2024, through April 17, 2025. Read the order: Case History 33150. ILLINOIS Robert D. Lyman (Barrington, Illinois): In May 2025, counsel to the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order suspending Mr. Lyman's CFP® certification after he failed to meet the terms of a consent order approved by the Commission in April 2022. The consent order settled a CFP Board complaint filed against Mr. Lyman involving $644,000 in tax liens the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) imposed on him for failing to pay federal income taxes over several years. CFP Board alleged that the liens demonstrated Mr. Lyman's inability to manage his personal finances and violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board's Rules of Conduct, which prohibits a CFP® professional from engaging in conduct that reflects adversely on their integrity or fitness as a certificant, on the CFP® marks or on the profession. Mr. Lyman agreed in the consent order that he would certify annually to CFP Board that he was not the subject of any new tax liens but was unable to do so after the IRS and state tax authorities imposed approximately $280,000 in new tax liens against him starting later in 2022. His failure to comply with the terms of the consent order is considered a default under Article 4.1 of CFP Board's Procedural Rules. Based on a determination of the seriousness, scope and harmfulness of Mr. Lyman's conduct, enforcement counsel filed a motion for an administrative order of suspension, which counsel to the Commission granted on May 1, 2025. The suspension is effective from June 2, 2025, until Mr. Lyman is deemed eligible for reinstatement under Article 4.6 of the Procedural Rules. Read the order: Case History 44766. KENTUCKY Michael H. Gross (Louisville, Kentucky): In May 2025, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order suspending Mr. Gross's CFP® certification and right to use the CFP® marks for three months. The Commission's order cites a February 2023 agreement Mr. Gross entered with Kentucky state regulators requiring him and his advisory firm to pay a $7,400 fine and to remediate deficiencies observed during a routine compliance examination. The Kentucky order describes several books and records violations and a breach of fiduciary duty under the Kentucky securities laws based on findings that Mr. Gross's firm made impermissible guarantees to existing and potential clients on its YouTube channel, charged a client an unreasonable advisory fee on assets held solely in cash, failed to maintain executed advisory contracts, and did not file timely and accurate Forms U4 and ADV. In its order, the Commission found that Mr. Gross violated Standard A.1 of CFP Board's Code and Standards, requiring a CFP® professional to act as a fiduciary and in the best interests of the client at all times when providing financial advice; Standard A.2.b, prohibiting a CFP® professional from making any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact when providing professional services; and Standard A.8.a, requiring a CFP® professional's compliance with all laws, rules and regulations governing professional services. Mr. Gross's suspension is effective from June 9, 2025, through September 8, 2025. Read the order: Case History 45294. NEW JERSEY Danny Z. Spiegel (Ocean, New Jersey): In May 2025, a hearing panel of the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) found it in the public interest to impose on Mr. Spiegel an interim suspension of his CFP® certification and right to use the CFP® marks during the pendency of related enforcement proceedings. In its petition for the interim suspension, CFP Board's enforcement counsel cited a January 2025 cease-and-desist order entered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Mr. Spiegel for violating Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by selling membership interests in limited liability companies without associating with a registered broker-dealer. The SEC's order, entered with Mr. Spiegel's consent, imposed on him a six-month suspension from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent or nationally recognized statistical rating organization; a six-month suspension from participating in any offering of a penny stock; disgorgement of $142,083; and a civil penalty of $40,000. The CFP Board suspension was effective on May 12, 2025. Read the order: Case History 47584. OREGON Timothy D. Clairmont (Portland, Oregon): In June 2024, CFP Board's Appeals Commission affirmed a December 2023 decision by the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) suspending Mr. Clairmont's right to use the CFP® certification marks for two and a half years. In its 2023 order, the Commission found that Mr. Clairmont breached his fiduciary duty under Rule 1.4 of CFP Board's Rules of Conduct and failed to exercise reasonable and prudent professional judgment under Rule 4.4 when he failed to plan for the significant taxes his client incurred on the sale of assets the client had inherited, instead recommending that the client purchase illiquid investments. As a fiduciary providing financial planning, Mr. Clairmont had an obligation to comply with Practice Standard 400-2 of CFP Board's Financial Planning Practice Standards, which requires a CFP® professional to develop recommendations to reasonably meet the client's goals, needs and priorities. The Commission found that Mr. Clairmont failed to fully investigate and set aside funds for his client's tax liability and to appropriately determine the client's required cash flow in relation to her need for immediate income. The Commission also found that Mr. Clairmont violated Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Conduct when he intentionally made a misstatement to CFP Board on his April 2020 Ethics Declaration by answering 'No' to a question asking if he had ever been named a respondent in an arbitration. The order notes that six months earlier, Mr. Clairmont had settled an arbitration claim filed against him by the same client. Mr. Clairmont's suspension is effective June 4, 2025, through December 3, 2027. Read the order: Case History 33677. TEXAS Todd L. Luft (The Woodlands, Texas): In April 2025, counsel to the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission issued an order immediately suspending Mr. Luft's CFP® certification and right to use the CFP® marks based on his February 2025 suspension by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA). FINRA suspended Mr. Luft from associating with any FINRA member after he failed to comply with an arbitration award directing him to pay more than $500,000 to his former firm for not meeting obligations under promissory notes he had signed. The CFP Board order, effective April 21, 2025, suspends Mr. Luft during the pendency of related enforcement proceedings. Read the order: Case History 47717. TEMPORARY BAR CALIFORNIA Brian P. Colla (Corona, California): In May 2025, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order denying Mr. Colla's petition for a determination that he is fit for CFP® certification and barring him from applying for CFP® certification for two years. Mr. Colla was required to file his petition after disclosing to CFP Board that he had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protections in October 2001 and again in April 2024. In reaching its determination, the Commission noted that although Mr. Colla's first bankruptcy occurred over 20 years before he entered the financial services industry, his most recent bankruptcy was discharged only one month before he filed his petition. While the second bankruptcy was due in part to unforeseen business challenges arising from the COVID pandemic, the Commission found it too soon to conclude that Mr. Colla had adequately demonstrated an ability to manage his financial affairs. The bar is effective from June 20, 2025, through June 19, 2027. Read the order: Case History 46512. FLORIDA Christopher A. Hynes (Punta Gorda, Florida): In April 2025, Mr. Hynes entered into a consent order with the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) barring him from CFP Board certification and the right to use the CFP Board certification marks for one year and a day. The order describes a recommendation Mr. Hynes made to his clients, a Massachusetts couple, to invest in 'structured cash flows' offered by an issuer purporting to sell the rights to pension payments owed to federal employees. The couple, who in February 2016 purchased approximately $87,000 of the structured products, had discussed with Mr. Hynes their need for a stream of cash flow to cover the first phase of their retirement. Mr. Hynes, a lawyer, told the couple that he had conducted extensive due diligence into the issuer of the structured cash flow product he was recommending, including his review of a memorandum discussing the propriety of the issuer's purchase of pension payments under federal law. The clients' purchase agreement for the product states that payments were in fact illiquid and not guaranteed, and that they were subject to 'unsettled' law and increasing scrutiny by state regulators. In 2018, the clients stopped receiving monthly payments, and the issuer was later determined to have orchestrated a Ponzi scheme. In 2022, Massachusetts securities regulators investigated the circumstances around the clients' investment and entered a consent order with Mr. Hynes in which he agreed that he had violated state law by transacting business in the state without being properly registered. Massachusetts barred Mr. Hynes from seeking registration in the state for five years and ordered him to pay approximately $50,000 in restitution, a $25,000 fine and disgorgement of the referral fee he had earned on the transaction. Mr. Hynes's consent order with the Commission cites several violations of CFP Board's Rules of Conduct, including Rule 1.4, for failing to meet his fiduciary duty of care when engaging in financial planning; Rule 4.5, for recommending an investment that was not suitable for his clients; Rule 4.3, for failing to comply with applicable regulatory requirements governing the professional services he provided to his clients; and Rule 6.5, for engaging in conduct that reflects adversely on his integrity or fitness as a certificant, on the CFP® marks or on the profession. The bar is effective from April 30, 2025, through April 30, 2026. Read the order: Case History 45210. NORTH CAROLINA Basil Marchi (Raleigh, North Carolina): In May 2025, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an order denying Mr. Marchi's petition for a determination that he is fit for CFP® certification and barring him from applying for certification for three years. In his May 2024 application for CFP® certification, Mr. Marchi disclosed tax liens and other conduct presumed to bar him from being certified. In February 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began imposing liens on Mr. Marchi covering multiple tax years dating back to 2005. In all, the IRS imposed more than $900,000 in liens for unpaid federal taxes, fines, penalties and fees. North Carolina tax authorities filed separate liens related to Mr. Marchi's unpaid state taxes. His firm terminated him in August 2016 for failing to report the liens, and in March 2017, Mr. Marchi entered a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) suspending him for six months and fining him $10,000 for failing to disclose the liens on his FINRA registration. Mr. Marchi filed for bankruptcy in early 2018. At the time of his hearing, Mr. Marchi had not paid his FINRA fine and had $50,000 in outstanding federal tax liens, which he intended to pay under an installment plan with the IRS. In addition to imposing a three-year bar, the Commission's order conditions Mr. Marchi's eligibility for CFP® certification on his having satisfied all outstanding liens and paid his FINRA fine. Mr. Marchi's bar is effective from June 2, 2025, through June 1, 2028. Read the order: Case History 46708. REVOCATION PENNSYLVANIA John A. Dougherty (Blue Bell, Pennsylvania): In May 2025, counsel to the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) issued an administrative order revoking Mr. Dougherty's CFP® certification and permanently barring him from future certification after he indicated he would no longer participate in CFP Board's investigation into allegations made against him in a lawsuit filed in South Carolina state court. The lawsuit alleged that Mr. Dougherty breached his fiduciary duty and duty of care and failed to properly disclose conflicts of interest relating to investment recommendations he had made to a client, including that the client invest in a highly speculative business venture. Mr. Dougherty was already under an interim suspension issued in April 2024. By expressing his clear intention not to participate in CFP Board's investigation, Mr. Dougherty was in default under Article 4.1.b of its Procedural Rules. Enforcement counsel filed a motion for an administrative order revoking Mr. Dougherty's CFP® certification and permanently barring his future certification based on a determination of the seriousness, scope and harmfulness of his conduct. Counsel for the Commission granted the motion on May 30, 2025. The order was effective on June 30, 2025. Read the order: Case History 46471. ABOUT CFP BOARD CFP Board is the professional body for personal financial planners in the U.S. CFP Board consists of two affiliated organizations focused on advancing the financial planning profession for the public's benefit. CFP Board of Standards sets and upholds standards for financial planning and administers the prestigious CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER® certification — widely recognized by the public, advisors and firms as the standard for financial planners — so that the public has access to the benefits of competent and ethical financial planning. CFP® certification is held by more than 100,000 people in the U.S. CFP Board Center for Financial Planning addresses diversity and workforce development challenges and conducts and publishes research that adds to the financial planning profession's body of knowledge.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Better Dividend Stock: Western Midstream vs. Energy Transfer
Key Points Energy Transfer and Western Midstream Partners have high distribution yields. The MLPs back their payouts with stable cash flow and strong financial profiles. Both have solid growth prospects. 10 stocks we like better than Energy Transfer › Energy Transfer (NYSE: ET) and Western Midstream Partners (NYSE: WES) are among the largest master limited partnerships (MLPs). These midstream companies generate stable cash flow, much of which they pay out to investors. Energy Transfer's distribution yields 7.5%, and Western Midstream's is over 9%. Most investors will likely prefer to own only one of these MLPs, especially due to the potential tax complications associated with the annual Schedule K-1 federal tax forms they send to investors. Here's a look at which MLP is the better buy for those seeking sustainable, growing dividend income. Drilling down into their operations Energy Transfer and Western Midstream operate diversified energy midstream networks. Western Midstream serves the Delaware, DJ, and Powder River basins. It primarily gathers, treats, processes, and transports natural gas, NGLs, and crude oil, as well as provides water disposal services. It generates fee-based income secured by long-term contracts. Energy Transfer offers broader diversification, as it serves a range of commodities, including natural gas, NGLs, crude oil, and refined products. Its integrated wellhead-to-water system features over 130,000 miles of pipelines linking gathering and processing assets, storage facilities, and export terminals. About 90% of its earnings are fee-based. Energy Transfer's larger, more diversified infrastructure business model reduces risk and increases its growth potential. There are other notable differences between these MLPs. Oil giant Occidental Petroleum is one of Western Midstream's largest customers and holds a 44.8% direct interest in the MLP, as well as a 2% stake in its operating company. Energy Transfer, on the other hand, doesn't have a single significant customer or a large controlling shareholder. Instead, the company controls two other MLPs (Sunoco and USA Compression), which supply it with additional income and enhance its growth profile. Comparing their financial positions A high dividend yield can sometimes signal financial distress, but that's not the case with these MLPs. Energy Transfer is in the best financial position in its history. Its leverage ratio is now in the lower half of its target range of 4.0-4.5 times. Additionally, the MLP generates enough cash to cover its payout by more than two times, providing it with the flexibility to invest in growth projects and make acquisitions. Western Midstream also maintains a strong financial position, backed by a leverage ratio currently below 3.0x. While Western Midstream has a higher payout ratio, it expects to generate sufficient free cash flow this year to cover its capital expenditures with some room to spare. As a result, it also has ample financial flexibility to make bolt-on acquisitions and approve additional organic expansion projects. A look at their growth profiles Energy Transfer plans to invest $5 billion in growth capital projects this year, including a major new natural gas pipeline, several additional gas processing plants, and increased export capacity. Those projects should fuel accelerated earnings growth in the 2026-2027 time frame. Meanwhile, the company has several more expansion projects under development, including its Lake Charles LNG export terminal. Energy Transfer also has the financial capacity to continue its industry consolidation strategy (it typically makes one multibillion-dollar acquisition per year to enhance its capabilities and drive growth). These growth investments support Energy Transfer's outlook for 5% earnings growth this year, which should accelerate in 2026. That backs its plans to increase its high-yielding distribution by 3% to 5% annually. Meanwhile, Western Midstream expects its 2025 capital spending to be between $625 million and $775 million, with 65% allocated to growth initiatives. It aims to use its financial flexibility for additional organic expansions and accretive bolt-on acquisitions as opportunities arise. These growth investments should drive mid-single-digit cash flow and distribution growth. High-quality, high-yielding investments Western Midstream and Energy Transfer offer high-yielding distributions, backed by stable cash flows and strong financial profiles. As a result, either would be a solid option for those seeking to generate passive income. However, Energy Transfer's greater diversification reduces risk and provides it with more growth potential. Those features make it a better choice for investors seeking a sustainable, growing income stream. Do the experts think Energy Transfer is a buy right now? The Motley Fool's expert analyst team, drawing on years of investing experience and deep analysis of thousands of stocks, leverages our proprietary Moneyball AI investing database to uncover top opportunities. They've just revealed their to buy now — did Energy Transfer make the list? When our Stock Advisor analyst team has a stock recommendation, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor's total average return is up 1,034% vs. just 180% for the S&P — that is beating the market by 853.75%!* Imagine if you were a Stock Advisor member when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $641,800!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,023,813!* The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Matt DiLallo has positions in Energy Transfer. The Motley Fool recommends Occidental Petroleum. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Better Dividend Stock: Western Midstream vs. Energy Transfer was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pinterest, Inc. (PINS): It's A 'Remarkable Site,' Says Jim Cramer
We recently published . Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:PINS) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. A young, stylish woman using her smartphone to find inspiration for her latest DIY project. Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:PINS) operates a website that enables users to engage in artistic endeavors such as arts and crafts and home decoration. The firm's shares have gained 24% year-to-date and have gained 53% since their early-April drop. The stock has benefited from several catalysts, such as analyst upgrades and strong earnings performance. Cramer's a fan of Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:PINS): 'I'm always looking for companies like Square now Block, that could take off even if it doesn't get added to the S&P. And there are a couple of notes about Pinterest. I think that Bill Ready has done a remarkable job as CEO. Pinterest is going to be a part of what's scraped by these, the five big ones. And we should highlight the five big ones, they do matter. And I just think Pinterest is a place where people go to learn, and people go to have crafts. It's an underrated site. It's 25 billion. It could be 50 billion. While we acknowledge the potential of PINS as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
