Ex-Navistar CEO Ustian faces SEC suit over emissions disclosures, misleading investors

[kscarbel2]

Reuters  /  March 31, 2016

Navistar International Corp. agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine to settle Securities and Exchange Commission charges that it defrauded investors into believing a diesel truck engine it was developing could meet tough federal emissions standards.

The SEC also filed a related lawsuit accusing former Navistar CEO Daniel Ustian of leading a "campaign of deception" to defraud investors in 2011 and 2012.

Navistar did not admit or deny wrongdoing. The Lisle, Ill.,-based company said it settled to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation, and that "it was time to put this matter behind us."

Ustian has not settled. A lawyer for him did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Chicago.

Shares of Navistar fell 19 cents to $12.50 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The case arose from Navistar's failure to win EPA approval of a heavy-duty diesel truck engine designed to meet Clean Air Act standards adopted in 2010.

According to the SEC, Navistar spent more than $700 million to develop special "exhaust gas recirculation" (EGR) technology to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, only to abandon the effort in July 2012 and settle for technology used by its rivals.

The SEC said Ustian had led a "progressively desperate and fraudulent scheme" through news releases, conference calls and regulatory filings to deceive investors into believing that EPA certification was "right around the corner."

It said that as late as June 2012, Ustian signaled that feedback from the EPA suggested that certification might come soon, despite knowing that the agency had refused to certify a proposed engine the prior month.

The SEC said Navistar's lead engineer on the project had written in a June 4, 2012 email that the EPA response had been "unequivocally NO!," but soon retracted that email upon learning that "Dan put the gag order on us."

Navistar shares tumbled 15.2 percent on July 6, 2012, when it announced it was abandoning the EGR technology, the SEC said. Ustian resigned the next month.

The lawsuit against Ustian seeks civil penalties, a ban on his serving as an officer or director of public companies, and other remedies.

[kscarbel2]

SEC: Former Navistar CEO covered up failed engine technology

Crain's Chicago Business  /  March 31, 2016

The former chief executive of Navistar International orchestrated a "campaign of deception" to mislead investors, regulators and the public about the truck maker's inability to comply with environmental regulations, according to a new lawsuit.

Daniel Ustian, who led the Lisle-based truckmaker from 2003 to 2012, made a huge bet on an engine technology, called exhaust gas recirculation, or EGR for short, that failed to meet tougher Environmental Protection Agency nitrogen oxide emission standards that went into effect in 2010.

The manufacturer ultimately abandoned the technology, but before doing so, Ustian repeatedly lied about whether his gamble on the engine device was working, according to a 57-page lawsuit the Securities and Exchange Commission filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago today.

"(From) 2010 through 2012, instead of coming clean with the public regarding the difficulties Navistar was experiencing in developing and certifying a competitive EGR-only engine, Ustian engaged in a coverup," according to the suit.

Ustian violated securities laws, and should be subject to a wide range of penalties, according to the complaint. The SEC wants him to cough up an unspecified amount of money and pay a civil penalty. The agency seeks to have him permanently barred from serving as a corporate officer or director.

"When public companies and top executives discuss important regulatory developments with investors, they must tell the whole truth," Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said in a statement. A spokeswoman for the SEC in Washington declined further comment.

Lyndi McMillan, a spokeswoman for Navistar, declined to comment on the suit against Ustian. The securities regulator also accused Navistar itself of engaging in deception, but the company agreed pay a $7.5 million to settle the dispute with the SEC. Navistar didn't admit or deny anything related to the SEC's accusations.

“We believe that it was time to put this matter behind us and that this settlement was in the best interests of Navistar and its stockholders,” McMillan said in a statement. “Settling this matter will avoid the expense and distraction of a potential dispute with the SEC and allow us to continue our focus on building and sustaining momentum on behalf of our shareholders.”

Navistar's stock fell 17 cents today to close at $12.52 a share. The stock was valued at nearly $29 a share a year ago and $40 a share in 2014. The company has struggled to win over customers and market share amid years of regulatory acrimony that included a multiyear restatement of results to correct overstated earnings.

The SEC's complaint against Ustian portrays the ex-CEO as arrogant, trash-talking his competitors' upgrades to their engines while trumpeting how Navistar was handling the standards. He devoted "$700 million and tens of thousands of hours of its engineers' time" on Navistar's exhaust gas recirculation engine, or EGR, technology, the suit says.

For a while, Ustian was protected by a stash of emission credits that allowed Navistar to continue selling its products even though it had not been able to meet EPA standards using an engine equipped with the EGR technology. The pressure grew as the credits dwindled.

Rather than admit his bet failed, “Ustian engaged in a progressively desperate and fraudulent scheme to deceive the investing public into believing that EPA certification of a competitive EGR-only engine that met . . . (EPA standards) was right around the corner,” the SEC's lawsuit claims. “The deception was manifested in Ustian's and Navistar's statements in conference calls with analysts, in press releases, and in reports filed with the SEC.”

CHICAGO NAMES

Meanwhile, according to a MarketWatch report, tried to lobbying its way out of its problems, hiring names well known here and in Washington.

Those brought on board included Tyrone Fahner, a Chicago-based partner at Mayer Brown and former Illinois attorney general, as well as ASGK Public Strategies, a public relations firm founded by former Obama adviser David Axelrod; the Chicago-based company is now called Kivvit.

At one point Faher lobbied Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, about Navistar's problems, MarketWatch said in its report, in September. For its part, ASGK was hired to “put pressure on the EPA” for a certification of Navistar's engine technology or “provide political cover” for an EPA certification, according to an SEC filing cited by MarketWatch.

Kivvit declined to comment, while a Mayer Brown spokesman had no immediate comment.

Two other law firms, Williams and Jensen and Alston and Bird, also worked for the money-losing truckmaker. At point, a Williams employee thought about trying to get ex-Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn as well as U.S. Sen. Dick, D-Ill., Durbin and U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, to “carry the ask” of pressuring the EPA to approve the failed technology developed under Ustian.

[kscarbel2]

SEC: Navistar International and Former CEO Misled Investors About Advanced Technology Engine

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission  /  March 31, 2016

 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Navistar International Corp. with misleading investors about its development of an advanced technology truck engine that could be certified to meet U.S. emission standards.

Navistar, without admitting or denying the charges, has reached a settlement with the SEC and agreed to pay a $7.5 million penalty.  Separately, in a complaint filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, the SEC charged former Navistar CEO Daniel C. Ustian with misleading investors and with aiding and abetting violations by Lisle, Illinois-based Navistar.

The SEC alleges that Navistar and Ustian failed to fully disclose the company’s difficulties obtaining Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certification of a truck engine able to meet stricter EPA Clean Air Act standards that took effect in 2010.  Navistar and Ustian also are alleged to have repeatedly misled investors about Navistar’s development of the engine, which used exhaust-gas-recirculation (EGR) technology.  Navistar later abandoned the effort and adopted the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology used by its competitors.

“When public companies and top executives discuss important regulatory developments with investors, they must tell the whole truth,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Here, we allege that Navistar and its former CEO misled investors about their dealings with the EPA and the likely approval of its new emissions technology."

David Glockner, Director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office added, “We allege that in 2011 and 2012, the EPA repeatedly raised serious concerns with Navistar about its applications to certify an engine using EGR technology and that top Navistar officials knew the company had not succeeded in developing a commercially viable engine that would meet EPA standards.  Navistar and its then-CEO misled investors about these difficulties in numerous SEC filings, press releases, and public conference calls, and today we seek to hold them accountable for that misconduct.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding against Navistar:

• In early 2011, in an effort to reassure investors about its emissions control strategy, Navistar applied for certification of an engine it knew was not ready for production and sale even if the EPA certified it.  The EPA did not approve the application and by summer 2011, Navistar decided not to pursue it any longer.
• In late 2011, Navistar began preparing another application for EPA certification.  Four days after a meeting in which the EPA staff told Navistar that the proposed engine did not appear to meet the certification requirements, Navistar filed its 2011 annual report on Form 10-K, which stated that it planned to apply to have the EPA certify the engine and that it believed the engine met EPA’s certification requirements.
• After Navistar submitted a new application in early 2012, EPA staff raised  “several serious concerns” that it said would need to be resolved before it could approve the application.  Nevertheless, in a press release and filings in March 2012, Navistar characterized the application as a “milestone,” and in a conference call with analysts and investors, Ustian indicated that certification was proceeding in a typical timeframe and that Navistar could begin production on the engine in June 2012.
• In May 2012, Navistar withdrew its January 2012 application and submitted a third one incorporating changes to lower emissions at the expense of fuel economy and other engine performance features.  In a June 4, 2012 meeting, EPA staff told Navistar that it had serious concerns about this application as well and the next day informed Navistar in writing that the engine as currently designed was “unlikely” to be certified.  Despite this, Navistar’s June 2012 quarterly filing and conference call suggested that Navistar was unaware of any concerns by the EPA regarding the May 2012 application – one of several misstatements in the filing and call regarding the application.
• In July 2012, Navistar announced that it was withdrawing its application and would begin work on an engine using SCR technology.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Anne Graber Blazek, Amy Flaherty Hartman, Tim Stockwell, Will Saylor and Ann Tushaus, and was supervised by Robert J. Burson.  Eric Phillips and Jonathan Polish will lead the SEC’s litigation against Ustian.

[kscarbel2]

Navistar settles with SEC over probe into company’s 2010 emissions strategy; former CEO hit with charges

Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  April 1, 2016

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced April 1 that Navistar International Corp. agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle the criminal investigation into whether the company intentionally misled investors about its progress in meeting 2010 emissions standards.

The SEC also announced April 1 it has brought charges against former Navistar CEO Dan Ustian, claiming the truck and engine maker’s former boss misled investors about the company’s ability to meet those standards.

The SEC and Navistar say the settlement does not signify Navistar’s admission or denial of the accusations. In a statement to CCJ, Navistar says it was “time to put the matter behind” it.

“This settlement was in the best interests of Navistar and its stockholders,” Navistar told CCJ. “Settling this matter will avoid the expense and distraction of a potential dispute with the SEC and allow us to continue our focus on building and sustaining momentum on behalf of our shareholders.”

Regarding the charges against Ustian, twice in 2011 and once in 2012, the company’s proprietary MaxxForce engines were denied EPA certification, meaning they did not meet 2010 emissions standards. The company applied for 2010 certification after the official compliance date because it had built up so-called emissions credits for exceeding earlier emissions standards.

The SEC, however, claims Ustian and Navistar applied for the certification despite knowing its engine didn’t meet the standards set by the EPA.

The company filed for certification in what the SEC says was a misleading attempt to reassure its investors that its exhaust gas recirculation strategy would work. The SEC claims Ustian intentionally misled the company’s shareholders about the EGR strategy’s ability to meet 2010 standards.

All other North American truck and engine makers used a different strategy, the diesel exhaust fluid-based selective catalytic reduction system, to meet 2010 emissions standards. Navistar, however, strayed from the pack to pursue its EGR-only approach, a strategy it eventually abandoned in favor of SCR in late 2012. 

Ustian stepped down from his post as CEO in 2012.

Navistar announced in September it had received notification from the SEC about looming charges.

Despite the settlement of the criminal charges, Navistar, Ustian and the company’s former CFO are facing civil lawsuits making accusations similar to those by the SEC. Navistar is also still facing civil suits from trucking companies claiming Navistar knowingly sold heavy-duty diesel engines whose longevity was suspect, given the heavy use of EGR. The EPA has also filed a lawsuit against Navistar over its 2010 emissions strategy.

 

[kscarbel2]

Ex Navistar President Gets His

Steve Sturgess - On Everything Trucks  /  April 3, 2016 

(http://www.stevesturgess.com/2016/04/ex-navistar-president-gets-his.html)

When I penned the retrospective on the Navistar engine debacle (search Told You So here) I thought I’d said goodbye to the outgoing president Dan Ustian.

 

Not so.

Seems the Securities and Exchange Commission is not going to let the mendaciousness of his leadership go unpunished.

In a complaint lodged in the US District Court for the northern district of Illinois, Ustian is being called to account for the fraudulent misleading of the investment community about the progress of the 13-liter MaxxForce engine program goals and successes in meeting EPA2010. And, of course, the propping up of the Navistar share value by so doing.

If you go back and re-read what I said in the previous posting, you’ll see I got fired for telling that same investment community in late 2010 that his was a house of cards and that Navistar would never be whole till Ustian was gone. ‘Scuse me if I don’t crow a little here . . .

Anyway, Navistar is also named as a party to the fraud and within moments of the suits being filed has offered to pay a penalty of $7.5 million to settle. The regulatory agency statement said the company and its former leader “failed to fully disclose the company’s difficulties obtaining Environmental Protection Agency certification of a truck engine able to meet stricter EPA Clean Air Act standards.”

The story broke during the first few hours of the 2016 Mid America Trucking Show, and the 57-page complaint was in my e-mail within moments. Navistar said that “Settling this matter will avoid the expense and distraction of a potential dispute with the SEC” according to a quickly responding Transport Topics. No word if this will be accepted as yet.

 

The SEC complaint, with a demand for a jury trial for Ustian, is very specific in detailing how Ustian contrived to mislead the investment community and the press through publicly available Analyst Calls right up until the moment in July 2012 when the whole house of cards came tumbling down. 

That was when the company declared it would pursue Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) as the technology it would employ to meet EPA2010 and not the Advanced exhaust gas recirculation (A-EGR) championed by Ustian and his bunch of yes-men.

 

In fact, reading the complaint is very revealing. There were many in the company’s engineering side talking and e-mailing internally that the Navistar was heading up a blind technology alley but Ustian placed a gag order on them. One in particular is a jewel.

 

In paragraph 60 of the complaint, you can read the following: “In fact, at the time the 2011 Application was submitted to the EPA, the engine described in the application could run only in the testing laboratory. In a February 9, 2011 email regarding the engine covered by the 2011 Application, a Navistar Senior Technical Specialist working on certification matters told other engineers in the certification group:

 

‘I asked a bigger question. Would this engine ever be drivable in a truck and I got laughs in response.... Translation you have a[n] underpowered 13 liter engine that is coughing, sputtering and wheezing like some terminal cancer patient on a respirator’.”

 

And how about this: “When Navistar’s Vice President of Powertrain Product Development forwarded this email to Navistar’s Vice President of Integrated Product Development and suggested he talk with Ustian about these issues with the D-cert engine, the Vice President of Integrated Product Development responded that Ustian “totally knows it” and advised him to “[t]ell these guys to not worry about this sh[--] and not keep sending emails to each other.”

 

Now here’s the big kicker, and it’s there in the indictment as fact. One of the proposed solutions to the problem that the engine would run – just about – in the test lab but could not possibly power a truck was to propose to EPA that there be two lookup tables for the engine controller: one to be used in test, the other when the truck was going down the road. They made this proposal with a straight face but EPA laughed them down. In the now famous Dieselgate, Volkswagen did the exact same thing, and presumably at just about the same time, though without asking EPA’s permission.

 

The sad thing is that this after-the-fact bolting of the stable door will never reconstitute the fortunes of the many family trucking businesses that had to close their doors because of the unreliability of the MaxxForce and the hubris of one man: Dan Ustian. One has to hope the courts will come down on him like a ton of bricks and put him in the poorhouse along with all those customers he misled and with the financial community he duped.

[Red Horse]

KS-but were they not also skating by on "credits" that they had?  or am I confusing them with Cat?

[kscarbel2]

Navistar Fined $7.5M in Truck Emission Case

Heavy Duty Trucking  /  April 1, 2016

The Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday charged Navistar International Corp. with misleading investors about its development of an advanced technology truck engine that could be certified to meet U.S. emission standards.

Navistar, without admitting or denying the charges, reached a settlement with the SEC and agreed to pay a $7.5 million penalty.

Separately, in a complaint filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, the SEC charged former Navistar CEO Daniel C. Ustian, who left the company in 2012, with misleading investors and with aiding and abetting violations by the Illinois-based Navistar. Multiple new outlets report they have been unable to get a comment from Ustian regarding the case against him.

The SEC alleges that Navistar and Ustian failed to fully disclose the company’s difficulties obtaining Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certification of a truck engine able to meet stricter EPA Clean Air Act standards that took effect in 2010.

“We believe that it was time to put this matter behind us and that this settlement was in the best interests of Navistar and its stockholders. Settling this matter will avoid the expense and distraction of a potential dispute with the SEC and allow us to continue our focus on building and sustaining momentum on behalf of our shareholders,” said Lyndi McMillan, external communications manager for Navistar in a statement to Truckinginfo.com.

Navistar and Ustian also are alleged to have repeatedly misled investors about Navistar’s development of the engine, which used exhaust-gas-recirculation (EGR) technology. Navistar later abandoned the effort and adopted the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology used by its competitors.

“When public companies and top executives discuss important regulatory developments with investors, they must tell the whole truth,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Here, we allege that Navistar and its former CEO misled investors about their dealings with the EPA and the likely approval of its new emissions technology."

David Glockner, director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office said, “We allege that in 2011 and 2012, the EPA repeatedly raised serious concerns with Navistar about its applications to certify an engine using EGR technology and that top Navistar officials knew the company had not succeeded in developing a commercially viable engine that would meet EPA standards. Navistar and its then-CEO misled investors about these difficulties in numerous SEC filings, press releases, and public conference calls, and today we seek to hold them accountable for that misconduct.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding against Navistar:

“In early 2011, in an effort to reassure investors about its emissions control strategy, Navistar applied for certification of an engine it knew was not ready for production and sale even if the EPA certified it. The EPA did not approve the application and by summer 2011, Navistar decided not to pursue it any longer.

“In late 2011, Navistar began preparing another application for EPA certification. Four days after a meeting in which the EPA staff told Navistar that the proposed engine did not appear to meet the certification requirements, Navistar filed its 2011 annual report on Form 10-K, which stated that it planned to apply to have the EPA certify the engine and that it believed the engine met EPA’s certification requirements.

“After Navistar submitted a new application in early 2012, EPA staff raised ‘several serious concerns’ that it said would need to be resolved before it could approve the application. Nevertheless, in a press release and filings in March 2012, Navistar characterized the application as a 'milestone,' and in a conference call with analysts and investors, Ustian indicated that certification was proceeding in a typical timeframe and that Navistar could begin production on the engine in June 2012.

“In May 2012, Navistar withdrew its January 2012 application and submitted a third one incorporating changes to lower emissions at the expense of fuel economy and other engine performance features. In a June 4, 2012 meeting, EPA staff told Navistar that it had serious concerns about this application as well and the next day informed Navistar in writing that the engine as currently designed was 'unlikely' to be certified. Despite this, Navistar’s June 2012 quarterly filing and conference call suggested that Navistar was unaware of any concerns by the EPA regarding the May 2012 application – one of several misstatements in the filing and call regarding the application.

“In July 2012, Navistar announced that it was withdrawing its application and would begin work on an engine using SCR technology.”

[kscarbel2]

1 hour ago, Red Horse said:

KS-but were they not also skating by on "credits" that they had?  or am I confusing them with Cat?

They were using credits, as FCA is doing today in the light vehicle segment. The law allows that.

But the issue to remember is, aside from the extremely arrogant Ustian, the Massive EGR (MEGR) system used by Navistar was designed and funded by the EPA (with your tax dollars........but without your informed knowledge or consent).

Your incompetent and unqualified EPA decided that MEGR (EGR levels from 35% to 50%) was the optimum emissions technology for the United States (instead of SCR!), but they needed at least one truckmaker to run with their ball........and a politically correct Ustian quickly agreed to do it (because the EPA was paying most of the tab).

And as Paul says, after the EPA's MEGR system failed, Navistar has been hung out to dry.....

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA Suing Navistar Over 2010 Engines

Transport Topics / July 16, 2015

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on July 14 filed a lawsuit against truck maker Navistar International Corp. alleging that the company in 2009 began the manufacture of 7,750 heavy-duty diesel engines it offered for sale in calendar year 2010 that did not meet emissions standards applicable to 2010 engines.

“None of the subject engines were covered by a certificate of conformity [nor exempt from the prohibition against selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction into commerce engines not covered by a COC] when they were sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into commerce by defendants,” the EPA said.

“Additionally, each and every delegated assembly engine was ‘fully assembled, except for aftertreatment devices’ in 2010 and is therefore not a model-year 2009 engine.”

A certificate of conformity verifies that a heavy-duty diesel engine meets EPA’s standards limiting the emission of oxides of nitrogen and non-methane hydrocarbons.

Navistar could face penalties of up to $37,500 per day for each violation of the Clean Air Act.

“We dispute these allegations,” Navistar spokesman Steve Schrier told Transport Topics. “We believe our 2010 engine transition was appropriate, and we intend to aggressively defend our position going forward.”

In its complaint, EPA said that on Nov. 3, 2010, the EPA sent Navistar a request “seeking certain information as part of an EPA investigation into Navistar’s compliance with the emissions standards.”

“EPA generally sought information from Navistar relating to the names, build dates, model years, vehicle information numbers, serial numbers, engine classes, dates of installation and assembly, and other information related to engine and vehicle manufacturing operations of Navistar,” the lawsuit said.

On Feb. 4, 2011, Navistar provided an initial response to EPA claiming the information being sought was confidential.

The EPA said it has determined that some, but not all, of the information submitted to the agency in a spreadsheet deserves “confidential treatment.”

[kscarbel2]

Ex-Navistar CEO fights suit that says he lied to investors

Crain’s Chicago Business  /  July 7, 2016

Daniel Ustian, the former chief executive of Navistar International, is fighting a federal lawsuit that claims he repeatedly lied to investors about the status of an engine technology the truckmaker failed to develop.

In a court filing last month, Ustian's legal team sought to dismiss the complaint the Securities and Exchange Commission filed against him in March, stating the agency resorted to "smoke and mirrors" in the suit after failing to find anything substantial against Ustian during a four-year investigation.

"Although laced with hyperbole . . . SEC's complaint does not allege that Ustian lied about anything," the filing says. "Rather, with the benefit of hindsight, SEC's real contention is that a host of admittedly true statements should have been coupled with even more cautionary language" about the engine technology and a federal environmental certification process for it.

During his tenure as CEO of Lisle-based Navistar from 2003 to 2012, Ustian directed the company to develop an engine technology called exhaust gas recirculation, or EGR for short. Despite spending what the SEC suit said was $700 million on EGR, the product couldn't meet Environmental Protection Agency nitrogen oxide emission standards, which got tougher in 2010.

Navistar eventually gave up on the technology, but before doing so, Ustian wasn't truthful about whether EGR was functioning as planned and if the EPA would certify the technology for use in engines, the SEC claimed in its suit against the onetime chief executive at the manufacturer. Ustian even engaged in a "cover-up," according to the suit.

Ustian's lawyers said in a June filing in U.S. District Court in Chicago that their client believed EGR was superior to a competing technology called selective catalytic reduction. Ustian made truthful "factual or forward-looking public statements" about the certification process for it, the filing shows.

Ustian "never assured that its engines would be certified or predicted the outcome of the process," his legal team wrote in a motion to dismiss the case. "On the contrary, he and the company repeatedly stated that certification might be denied," something that would hurt the company's engine sales.

The SEC says the case shouldn't be dismissed, and asked Judge Sara Ellis to deny the motion to dismiss the case, a filing shows.

Ustian could not be reached for comment. He has assembled a powerful legal team to defend him, a group that includes Stephen Neal, the Palo Alto, Calif.-based chairman of the law firm Cooley, and Sean Berkowitz, a Chicago-based partner at Latham & Watkins.

Neal is known for defending big corporate clients such as General Motors and AT&T, while Berkowitz once prosecuted former executives at Enron when he was at the Department of Justice. Neither could be reached.

When the SEC sued Ustian in March, it also agreed to settle a dispute with Navistar itself. The company agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine related to how it handled the EGR technology and certification process. Navistar didn't admit or deny anything related to the SEC's action against it in agreeing to pay the fine.

.

[kscarbel2]

Former Navistar CEO to pay $500,000 in SEC settlement

Chris Prentice, Reuters  /  March 2, 2020

WASHINGTON -- The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Monday said the former CEO of Illinois-based Navistar International Corp. will pay $500,000 to resolve charges of misleading investors.

The SEC charged Daniel Ustian and Navistar in 2016 with misleading investors about Navistar's development of an advanced technology truck engine that could satisfy U.S. pollution standards, the regulator said. Navistar International Corp agreed in 2016 to pay a $7.5 million fine for the charges.

The case arose from Navistar's failure to win EPA approval of a heavy-duty diesel truck engine designed to meet Clean Air Act standards adopted in 2010.

A lawyer for the former Navistar executive did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

Without admitting or denying the charges, Ustian agreed to give up $250,000 in ill-gotten gains and pay another $250,000 as a penalty, the SEC said in a statement. The commission's order also prohibits Ustian from violating the antifraud provisions of securities laws.

A court will later decide whether to bar Ustian from serving as an officer or director of a publicly traded company, the regulator said.

[kscarbel2]

How much does the EPA have to pay for baiting and pushing Ustian to use EGR instead of SCR ???

[TS7]

And not use taxpayer funds to pay for it.