BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

[ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. E&AO/RA/JP/01/2015]
__________________________________________________
UNDER SECTION 15-I OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
ACT, 1992 READ WITH RULE 5 OF SEBI (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING
INQUIRY AND IMPOSING PENALTIES BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES,
1995
In respect of:
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Shah
(Member of Calcutta Stock Exchange)
SEBI Registration No. INB 030054010
(PAN. AKUPS5078C)
BACKGROUND
1.

Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) had

conducted investigation in trading in the scrip of G.K. Consultants Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as GCL) which was listed at Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as BSE), Delhi Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as DSE) and
Calcutta Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as CSE) for the period covering
from October 01, 2004 to September 30, 2005.

2.

Role of the stock brokers etc. who had traded in the scrip of GCL was scrutinized
under the investigation. It was observed during the investigation that certain entities
including Mr. Rajendra Prasad Shah - Member of Calcutta Stock Exchange having
SEBI Registration No. INB030054010 (hereinafter referred to as the Noticee) had
allegedly indulged in cross trades / synchronized trades in such a manner that led to
creation of artificial volume and impacted the price of the scrip by placing orders for
buying shares at a price away from last traded price (LTP).

Page 1 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

3.

Therefore, it was alleged that the Noticee had violated the provisions of regulations
4(1), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(e), 4(2)(g) and 4(2)(n) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent
and Unfair Trade Practice relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as PFUTP Regulations), Clauses A(1), A(2), A(3), A(4)
and A(5) of Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers as specified in Schedule II read with
regulation 7 of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992
(hereinafter referred to as Stock Brokers Regulations) and thereby is liable for
monetary penalty under sections 15HA and 15HB of Securities and Exchange Board
of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as SEBI Act).
APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER

4.

The undersigned has been appointed as Adjudicating Officer vide order dated May
29, 2009 under section 15 I of the SEBI Act read with rule 3 of the SEBI (Procedure
for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995
(hereinafter referred to as Adjudication Rules) to inquire into and adjudge the
alleged violations of provisions of the PFUTP Regulations and the Stock Brokers
Regulations.
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND HEARING

5.

Show Cause Notice No. RA/198474/2010 dated March 09, 2010 (hereinafter
referred to as SCN) was issued to the Noticee under rule 4(1) of the Adjudication
Rules to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held and penalty be not
imposed under sections 15HA and 15HB of the SEBI Act for the alleged violation
specified in the said SCN.

6.

Aforesaid SCN was duly served upon the Noticee, however, he did not reply
towards the SCN. For the purpose of inquiry under rule 4 (3) of the Adjudication
Rules, the Noticee was granted an opportunity of personal hearing on June 25, 2010
vide notice dated June 09, 2010. The aforesaid hearing notice was duly served upon
the Noticee, however, the Noticee neither appeared / responded towards the notice
of hearing nor he filed any reply towards the SCN. Thereafter, in view of the
principles of natural justice, last opportunity of hearing was granted to the Noticee
on January 11, 2011 vide notice dated December 21, 2010. The aforesaid hearing
Page 2 of 13

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

notice was duly served upon the Noticee, however, he again neither appeared /
responded towards the notice of hearing nor filed any reply towards the SCN.
7.

Thereafter, keeping in view of the principles of natural justice, another last

opportunity of hearing was granted to the Noticee on February 13, 2015 vide notice
dated January 22, 2015. In response to the said notice of hearing, the Noticee first
time vide his letter dated February 05, 2015 expressed his inability to appear for the
scheduled hearing on the ground that he had undergone major surgery during
November 2014 to January 2015 and doctors had advised him to take complete rest
for around 3 months. In support of his claim, the Noticee had also enclosed certain
medical certificates / documents. Keeping in view the principles of natural justice at
larger extent, taking into account the medical grounds as stated by the Noticee and
considering the sufficient time as he expressed, another last opportunity of hearing
was granted to the Noticee on March 27, 2015 vide notice dated February 23, 2015.
In the said notice of hearing, it was inter-alia stated that as no reply towards the
SCN was received from the Noticee, therefore, his reply, if any, should reach to the
undersigned on or before March 20, 2015.

8.

In respect to the said notice of hearing, the Noticee through his letter dated March
11, 2015 repeated his medical issues and made the following submissions;
(a) He is senior citizen of age 71 years and is suffering with several medical
problems viz. heart related issues, diabetes, blood pressure etc. and had
undergone two major operations etc. and expressed his inability to move
anywhere.
(b) His business was prohibited by the SEBI in September 2005 and from that
date, he is running without business till date resulting into his financial
problems.
(c) The SCN was dated March 09, 2010 and after a period of nearly 5 years, he
received such letter/notice of hearing which is shocking as he presumed that
the case is closed long back.
(d) Due to his health and financial problems, he is unable to attend hearing either
in Mumbai or anywhere. The Noticee also requested for mercy to relieve him

Page 3 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

from the notices so that he can pass his balance life without any stress and
tension.

9.

Here, I am of the opinion that ample opportunities have been given to the Noticee to
appear for hearing and to file reply towards the allegation as leveled in the SCN.
From the aforesaid two communications / replies of the Noticee, it is clear that he
had expressed his inability to appear for hearing and did not insist for any
opportunity of the hearing in the matter. The Noticee also did not file any other reply
except aforesaid two communications and did not show his interest to file any other
reply / submission in the matter.

10. After taking into account the allegations, reply of the Noticee and other evidences /
material available on records, I hereby, proceed to decide the case on merit.
CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS
11. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are :
a)

Whether the Noticee had indulged into synchronized trades / cross trades in a
manner to create artificial volume and to impact the price of the scrip?

b)

Whether such indulgence the Noticee is in violation of regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a),

(b), (e), (g) and (n) of PFUTP Regulations; and Clauses A(1), A(2), A(3), A(4)
and A(5) of Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers as specified in Schedule II under
regulation 7 of Stock Brokers Regulations?

c)

If yes, then, does the violation, on the part of the Noticee attract monetary
penalty under sections 15 HA and 15HB of the SEBI Act?

d)

If yes, then, what would be the monetary penalty that can be imposed upon the
Noticee taking into consideration the factors mentioned in section 15J of the
SEBI Act read with rule 5 (3) of the Adjudication Rules?

12. Before moving forward, it will be appropriate to refer the following allegations made
under the SCN against the Noticee.

Page 4 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

(a)

The group of stock brokers including the Noticee were found to have been
involved in cross trading and synchronised trading accounting for almost 53.25%
(on the buy side) and 64.09% (on the sell side) of the traded volume during the
investigation period in the scrip of GCL.

(b)

The Noticee was involved in cross trading and synchronised trading on many
dates during the investigation period. The Noticee was involved in cross trades of
5,79,650 shares constituting 89.19% of his buy volume and 72.78% of his sale
volume wherein the Noticee appeared both on the buy and sale side.

(c)

The Noticee was involved in synchronized trades of 2,23,000 shares on the buy
side and 2,37,750 shares on the sell side wherein the buy and sale order were
placed within 1 minute of each other. Such trades constituted 34.31% of the
Noticee's buy volume and 29.85% of Noticee's sale volume. Some of the trades
executed by the Noticee were executed with a time difference less than 10
seconds and 90,900 of such trades were executed on buy side and 89,400 on
sale side. The Noticee was involved in synchronized trading on 42 days on the
buy side and 49 days on the sale side. The extracts of same from the
investigation report were provided to the Noticee along with SCN as Annexure A
& B.

(d)

The Noticee traded on 12 instances on the buy side and 14 instances on sale
side when the price was influences by 5% or more than the LTP. For example on
January 19, 2005 by executing cross trades, the Noticee had influenced the price
of the scrip by 40.09%. Details of such trades were provided to the Noticee along
with SCN as Annexure-C.

(e)

The Noticee was asked to provide information / documents regarding the clients
on behalf of whom he had transacted in the scrip, however, the Noticee failed to
provide the know your client (KYC) agreement forms of the concerned clients.

(f)

In view of the cross trading / synchronised trading and impact on the price of the
scrip, it was alleged that the Noticee had indulged in creation of artificial volume
in the shares of GCL and manipulated the price of the scrip and thereby violated
Page 5 of 13

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

regulations 4(1), 4 (2)(a), (b), (e), (g) and (n) of PFUTP Regulations and Clauses
A (1) to (5) of the Code of Conduct for stock brokers as specified in schedule II
under regulation 7 of Stock Brokers Regulations.
13. The relevant provisions of the PFUTP Regulations and the Stock Brokers
Regulations are produced as under:
PFUTP Regulations

4. Prohibition of manipulative, fraudulent and unfair trade practices

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of regulation 3, no person shall indulge in
a
fraudulent or an unfair trade practice in securities
(2) Dealing in securities shall be deemed to be a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice if it
involves fraud and may include all or any of the following, namely: (a) indulging in an act which creates false or misleading appearance of trading in the
securities market;
(b) dealing in a security not intended to effect transfer of beneficial ownership but
intended to operate only as a device to inflate, depress or cause fluctuations in the
price of such security for wrongful gain or avoidance of loss;
(c)
(d)
(e) any act or omission amounting to manipulation of the price of a security
(f)
(g) entering into a transaction in securities without intention of performing it or without
intention of change of ownership of such security.
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n) Circular transactions in respect of a security entered into between intermediaries in
order to increase commission to provide a false appearance of trading in such
security or to inflate, depress or cause fluctuations in the price of such security.

Stock Brokers Regulations

7. The stock-broker holding a certificate shall at all times abide by the Code of Conduct as
specified at Schedule II.

Page 6 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

SCHEDULE II
A. GENERAL
(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)

(5)

INTEGRITY: A stock-broker, shall maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude

and fairness in the conduct of all his business.
EXERCISE OF DUE SKILL AND CARE: A stock-broker, shall act with due skill,
care and diligence in the conduct of all his business.
MANIPULATION: A stock-broker shall not indulge in manipulative, fraudulent or
deceptive transactions or schemes or spread rumours with a view to distorting
market equilibrium or making personal gains.
MALPRACTICES: A stock-broker shall not create false market either singly or in
concert with others or indulge in any act detrimental to the investors interest or
which leads to interference with the fair and smooth functioning of the market. A
stock-broker shall not involve himself in excessive speculative business in the market
beyond reasonable levels not commensurate with his financial soundness
COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: A stock-broker shall abide
by all the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations issued by the Government,
the Board and the stock exchange from time to time as may be applicable to him.

14. I have carefully perused the allegations, submissions of the Noticee and the
evidences / material available on records. It is important to mention here that the
facts / details of the trading as alleged in the SCN, are not in dispute by the Noticee.
The Noticee nowhere in his submissions disputed the allegation of cross trading /
synchronized trading / impact on the price of the scrip etc. The submissions of the
Noticee are already mentioned at para 8 above and same are not repeated for sake
of brevity.
15. It is worth to mention here that it is well settled position of law that if the facts /
details of charges are not disputed by the person to whom show cause notice is
issued, then, it is presumed that the same are admitted by him. The Honble
Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) in the matter of Classic Credit Ltd. v/s SEBI
[2007] 76 SCL 51 (SAT - MUM) inter-alia held that the appellants did not file any
reply to the second show-cause notice. This being so, it has to be presumed that the charges
alleged against them in the show-cause notice were admitted by them. The Hon'ble SAT
also made such proposition on the issue of non denial of allegation in the case of
Jatin Manubhai Shah & Ors. v/s SEBI decided on August 10, 2009 under appeal No.
68/2008.

Page 7 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

16. Beside the above proposition of laws, I proceed to examine the allegations. Before
dealing with cross trading / synchronized trading, it is relevant to highlight the
background of trading in the scrip the details of which were already provided to the
Noticee alongwith the SCN. I have perused the material available on records /
annexures enclosed with the SCN. It is noted from the investigation report that
during the period from April 07, 2005 to August 01, 2005 at BSE, there was buy
orders for 8,44,317 shares vis--vis sale orders for only 14,383 shares. Also, on
April 13, 2005, while the scrip was traded at a price of ` 19 at BSE, the scrip was
traded in CSE in the price range of ` 208 to ` 220. It is also noted from the
investigations report that heavy buying pressure resulted in the scrip at BSE wherein
there was buy orders for 13,300 shares whereas there was sale orders for only 10
shares and such kind of buying pressure was witnessed on most of the days which
resulted into price increase in BSE.
17. It is observed from the records that at the CSE, on October 06, 2004 to December
23, 2004, the scrip was traded in the price range of ` 5.35 to `19.50 and
subsequently, the price increased continuously at a high of ` 248.50 on February
23, 2005. The total volume at CSE during the entire period i.e. from October, 2004
to September, 2005 was 40,72,843 shares, of which more than 50% was
contributed by the top 3 stock brokers. The details of their trading mentioned in the
following table:
SI
No

Buy
Name

Broker

Buy
Volume

1.

Ahilya
Commercial Pvt
Ltd
Ashok
Kumar
Kayan
Rajendra
Prasad
Shah
(the Noticee)
Total

2.

3.

Sale Broker
Name

Sale
Volume

8,61,500

%
to
Market
Volume
21.15%

Ashok Kumar
Kayan

11,66,400

%
to
Market
Volume
28.63%

6,58,000

16.15%

7,96,402

19.55%

6,49,850

15.95%

6,47,750

15.90%

21,69,350

53,25%

Rajendra
Prasad Shah
(the Noticee)
Ahilya
Commercial
Pvt Ltd
Total

26,10,552

64.09%

18. From the above, apparently, the way of trading is in the nature of attributing to the
substantial price difference between BSE and CSE and volume rise in the scrip.

Page 8 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

19. As regards to the role of the Noticee, it is observed from the available records that a
total of 40,72,843 shares were traded on CSE during the investigation period and
out of that, the Noticee had purchased for his clients 6,49,850 shares constituting
15.95% of market volume and sold for his clients 7,96,402 shares constituting
19.55% of market volume.
20. As regards the role of the Noticee in cross trades, it is observed from the records
that out of total 14,46,252 shares traded through the Noticee, the Noticee was
involved in cross trades of 5,79,650 shares constituting 89.19% of his buy volume
and 72.78% of his sale volume when he was the stock broker both on the buy and
sale side. Upon perusal of Annexure / records / trade logs, I find that the Noticee
had indulged into cross trades (viz. where the Noticee was the counter party stock
broker to his orders/trades and both buy and sale orders were executed from the
Noticee's same terminal) from October 26, 2004 to September 01, 2005 for 61 days
for 232 numbers of transactions. For example, on October 26, 2004, the Noticee
appeared on both buy as well as on the sale side. The details are as under:
Buy Order

Date

Time

Buy Member

Quanti
ty

Sale Member

Price

October 26,

14:55:21

Rajendra

10000

Rajendra

5.5

No.
91684826

2004
91684828

October 26,

Prasad Shah
14:55:36

2004
91684830

October 26,

October 26,

14:55:50

October 26,

15:01:57

October 26,

15:02:06

October 26,

15:02:27

October 26,

15:02:27

October 26,
2004

Rajendra

Rajendra

Rajendra

15:02:38

Rajendra

Rajendra
Prasad Shah

Page 9 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

10000

5.5

Rajendra

5.5

Rajendra

5.5

Prasad Shah
2000

Rajendra

5.5

Prasad Shah
8000

Rajendra

5.4

Prasad Shah
2000

Prasad Shah
15:02:38

Rajendra

Prasad Shah

Prasad Shah

2004
91684834

10000

Prasad Shah

2004
91684833

Rajendra

5.5

Prasad Shah

Prasad Shah

2004
91684833

10000

Prasad Shah

2004
91684836

Rajendra

Rajendra
Prasad Shah

Prasad Shah

2004
91684835

10000

Prasad Shah

2004
91684832

Rajendra

Prasad Shah

Rajendra

5.4

Prasad Shah
4000

Rajendra
Prasad Shah

5.4

21. As regards the role of the Noticee in synchronized trades, upon perusal of Annexure
/ records / trade logs, it is observed from the records that out of total transaction of
14,46,252 shares done by the Noticee, the Noticee as stock broker had indulged in
synchronized trades of 2,23,000 shares constituting 34.31% on the buy side and 2,
37,750 shares constituting 29.85 on the sale side wherein the buy and sale order
were placed within a difference of 1 minute of each other. I also find that Noticee
had indulged in synchronized trades on 42 days on the buy side and on 49 days on
the sale side. Further, it is observed that the 90,900 shares out of 2,23,000 shares
on the buy side, and 89,400 shares out of 2,37,750 shares on the sale side, were
executed through the Noticee with a time difference of less than 10 seconds from
placing of respective buy / sell orders, which are apparently synchronized in nature.
22. The manner in which the aforesaid transactions (cross trades and the synchronized
trades) were executed through the terminal of the Noticee apparently suggests that
the same were executed to create artificial volume in the shares of GCL.
23. As regards to the role of the Noticee in influencing the price of the scrip by way of
placing the orders at a price away from the LTP, it is observed that the Noticee
appeared for trade on 21 instances on the buy side and on 26 instances on the sale
side when the price increased by 1% more than LTP. Further, it is noted from the
records that the Noticee appeared on 12 instances on the buy side and 14 instances
on the sale side when the influence on price was more than 5%. For example, on
January 19, 2005, the Noticee executed cross trade being both on buy and sale side
at a price of ` 73.90 as compared to the LTP of ` 52.75 which apparently influenced
the price of the scrip by 40.09%.
24. It is relevant to refer here the well-known judgment of Honble SAT in Ketan Parekh
Vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 2 of 2004) decided on July 14, 2006 which held that in order
to find out whether a transaction has been executed with the intention to manipulate
the market or defeat its mechanism, will depend upon the intention of the parties
which could be inferred from the attending circumstances of the cases, because
direct evidence in such cases may not be available. The Honble SAT, in Triumph
International Finance Ltd. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India (Appeal No.
Page 10 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

35 of 2002), also observed as The question that arises for consideration is could it be
said that the appellant was innocent and whether such large number of trades could have
matched on the screen without the knowledge and active involvement of the appellant as a
broker. The answer has to be in the negative. It is the broker who plays a pivotal role in
synchronizing the trades with the counter broker and matches the same through the
exchange mechanism by punching the buy and sell orders simultaneously. It is true that the
brokers act on the advice of their clients but it is they who actually implement the game plan.
In the trades now in question the buyer, the seller and CSFB as the sellers broker have
already been found guilty. It is inconceivable that such large number of trades could have
matched on the screen without the appellant as the buyers broker being a party to the game
plan. Since the buy and sell orders were punched into the system simultaneously in such
large numbers and they all matched, we cannot believe that it was a coincidence and the
only inference that can be drawn is that there was a prior meeting of the minds before the
trades were executed and this disturbs the true price discovery mechanism of the exchange.
The appellant is only feigning innocence which plea in the circumstances cannot be
accepted.

25. The method and the manner in which the trades were executed are the most
important factors to be considered in these circumstances and the motive,
thereafter, automatically falls in line. I am of the opinion that frequency of such
trades ensured consistent matching of the orders purely for the purpose of
projection of the volumes of the shares of GCL in a way which was not the market
determined volumes, in order to induce other persons to invest in the said scrip.
26. Considering the number of such trades, it is clear that there has been a misuse of
the screen based trading system. From the aforesaid attending circumstances or the
pattern of trading viz. synchronized / cross trades, several instances when the time
difference between buy and sell orders was of few seconds only, contribution to the
considerable portion of market volume, impact on the price which was away from the
LTP etc, apparently suggests that same were so executed with an intention to
create misleading appearance of trading, to create artificial volume in the scrip and
also to manipulate the price of scrip. From the above, it is also clear that the Noticee
being a stock broker beside indulging into synchronized and cross trades, had also
Page 11 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

failed to exercise due skill, care and diligence and not maintained high standards of
integrity, promptitude, fairness in the conduct of business as a stock broker.
27. In view of the foregoing, the allegation of violation of provisions of regulations 4(1),
4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(e) and 4(2)(g) of PFUTP Regulations, Clauses A(1), A(2), A(3),
A(4) and A(5) of Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers as specified in Schedule II
under Regulation 7 of Brokers Regulations stands established against the Noticee.
28. Thus, the aforesaid violations by the Noticee makes him liable for penalty under
Section 15HA and Section 15HB of SEBI Act, 1992 which read as follows:
Penalty for fraudulent and unfair trade practices
15HA. If any person indulges in fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to
securities, he shall be liable to a penalty of twenty-five crore rupees or three times the
amount of profits made out of such practices, whichever is higher.
Penalty for contravention where no separate penalty has been provided
15HB. Whoever fails to comply with any provision of this Act, the rules or the regulations
made or directions issued by the Board thereunder for which no separate penalty has been
provided, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one crore rupees..
29. While determining the quantum of penalty under sections 15HA and 15HB, it is
important to consider the factors stipulated in section 15J of SEBI Act, which reads
as under:15J - Factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer
While adjudging quantum of penalty under section 15-I, the adjudicating officer shall have
due regard to the following factors, namely:(a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made
as a result of the default;
(b) the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors as a result of the default;
(c) the repetitive nature of the default.
30. It is noted that the investigation does not specify the disproportionate gains or unfair
advantage made by the Noticee or the loss suffered by the investors. As regards to
the repetitive nature of the default, it appears from the Action Taken Report of the
SEBI that several other actions had also been taken against the Noticee. Taking into
consideration the nature/gravity of violations, the possible adverse impact in
Page 12 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

disturbing the equilibrium of the fair market and shaking the investor's confidence in
the scrip, it is necessary that a justifiable penalty needs to be imposed upon the
Noticee to meet the ends of justice.
ORDER
31. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby
impose a penalty of ` 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) under section 15HA of the
SEBI Act and ` 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) under section 15HB of the SEBI
Act. Therefore, a total penalty of ` 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) is imposed
upon on the Noticee / Mr. Rajendra Prasad Shah. I am of the view that the said
penalty is commensurate with the violations committed by the Noticee.
32. The Noticee shall pay the said amount of penalty by way of Demand Draft in favour
of SEBI - Penalties Remittable to Government of India, payable at Mumbai, within
45 days of receipt of this order. The said demand draft should be forwarded to Chief
General Manager, Enforcement Department, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C 4 A, G
Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051.
33. In terms of rule 6 of the Adjudication Rules, copies of this order are sent to the
Noticee and also to the Securities and Exchange Board of India.

Date: April 15, 2015

RACHNA ANAND

Place: Mumbai

ADJUDICATING OFFICER

Page 13 of 13
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz