OAKLAND, Calif. – Hundreds of anti-Wall Street protesters defied a city order late Friday to leave their campsite at a plaza outside City Hall.

The city had given the Occupy Oakland demonstrators an ultimatum to be out by 10 p.m. PDT Friday, but there were signs of them leaving well after that hour.

Earlier in the day, city spokeswoman Karen Boyd said that the city gave official notice that the protesters do not have permission to remain overnight and that their encampment is breaking the law.

Many protesters said they have no intentions of leaving even though the city announced Thursday that after nearly two weeks it can no longer uphold public health and safety at the site.

Boyd says she expects the protesters to comply and would not comment on what steps the city would take toward enforcing of the law.

There was no sign of police presence immediately after 10 p.m. Friday.

Several cities in the United States and around the world have arrested anti-Wall Street protesters who have failed to leave public areas.

“I’m not going anywhere. They’re going to have to come and take me away,” said Christopher Dunlap, 23, who said he has been on the City Hall lawn since the first day of the encampment.

While the city will no longer allow protesters to stay overnight at the site, they can demonstrate there from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., Boyd said.

Earlier Friday, protester Gerry Johnson, 55, who said he has been at the site for more than a week said it’s unlikely his fellow demonstrators will leave.

“I’m trying to keep calm,” Johnson said. “We’re here for a good cause. I think we’ll stand our ground.”

The encampment has quickly grown from a few dozen tents to more than 150, causing overcrowding and tension. Some protesters moved to another site across town.

Oakland officials repeatedly said the city was committed to allowing free speech, with Mayor Jean Quan proclaiming Wednesday that sometimes “democracy is messy.”

However, citing an increasing rat problem, the city made repeated requests for campers to remove fire hazards then cited public urination and acts of violence also as reasons for them to pack up and go.

Boyd said the group was cooperating in the beginning, but things had changed as they “exceeded their ability to address public health and safety issues.”

“We have been very clear about the expectations,” Boyd said. “It has gotten to a point where individuals can no longer maintain the plaza. It’s deteriorated to the point where we needed to take strong action.”

The notice to vacate didn’t sit well with protesters. Since their arrival, they have created a 24-hour kitchen, complete with pots, pans and a stove as well as areas for health and child care.

Oakland Interim Deputy Fire Chief Lisa Baker toured the perimeter of the site Friday. She said firefighters were threatened and harassed while responding to three 911 calls Thursday.

“Can I talk to your president? Who’s in charge?” Baker asked.

Robin Woods, an Oakland Occupy member, replied, “We don’t have one. This is a leaderless movement.”

Baker said, “Look, we’re not trying to be confrontational, but if someone calls 911, they will get the care and service that we provide.”

Baker urged Woods to pass along her thoughts to organizers. The two shook hands.

Anderson said that he hopes the city doesn’t try to take down the community built by demonstrators.

“This has no corporate ties. This is all public, all people, that’s why this is a threat,” Anderson said. “This is a peaceful assembly, so therefore if you want to violently come in here, what does that say about America?”

WASHINGTON – Federal regulators have won a court order against a hedge fund manager they accuse of funneling hundreds of millions of dollars from investors in his funds to the $3.7 billion Ponzi scheme run by convicted Minnesota businessman Tom Petters.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced Monday the order by a federal judge in Minneapolis against Connecticut fund manager Marlon Quan. The order issued Friday by the judge freezes about $14 million that Quan was to get from a court-appointed receiver in the Petters case to settle claims against Petters by investors in Quan’s funds, the agency said.

The SEC filed civil charges against Quan of violating the securities laws and aiding the Petters fraud. The agency also says Quan negotiated an agreement with the receiver to “divert” the Petters settlement funds to him and others instead of to the swindled investors.

The SEC also is seeking unspecified restitution and penalties against Quan, who lives in Greenwich, Conn.

An attorney representing Quan didn’t have an immediate comment Monday.

Petters was convicted in 2009 on 20 counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering and conspiracy in one of the biggest Ponzi cases in recent years. He is serving a 50-year prison sentence but is appealing his conviction.

The SEC alleged that Quan collected more than $459 million from at least 165 investors in his hedge funds and funneled the majority of it, an amount it didn’t specify, to Petters from 2001 through September 2008. Quan made about $90 million in fees from investors in his funds whose money was transferred to Petters, the agency said. When Petters couldn’t make payments on the investments, Quan hid Petters’ defaults from the investors by fabricating transactions, according to the SEC.

At least two other investment firms funneled money to Petters’ empire, according to the regulators. Now-defunct Lancelot Investment Management, of Chicago, is said to have lost $1.5 billion in the scheme; its CEO pleaded guilty to wire fraud in 2009 and testified against Petters. Palm Beach Finance Partners, of Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., lost $1 billion and filed for bankruptcy protection.

NEW YORK (Reuters) –
The top U.S. securities regulator wants more feedback on its nearly year-old proposal to ban “flash orders,” and has asked additional questions about the wisdom of the ban in the options market.

The Securities and Exchange Commission in September proposed to ban the orders, which some exchanges “flashed” for a fraction of a second to specific market participants before displaying them to the wider marketplace, giving exchanges a last chance to fill the orders in-house.

The ban plan was intended to level the playing field, and meant to apply for both the stock and option markets.

The SEC has now asked for public comment on the overall quality of flash executions in the options market, and on what effect a ban would have on its more recent proposal to cap option trading fees.

The SEC “is particularly interested in the extent to which flash orders, if they fail to receive an execution in the flash process, ‘miss the market’ by either receiving an inferior price through an execution against a displayed quotation or no execution at all,” it said in a July 2 notice on its web site.

Public comments will be accepted until August 9. The last deadline was in November.

The SEC is reviewing the high-speed marketplace that has become increasingly fragmented and complicated over the last decade. The regulator raised several concerns even before the severe May 6 “flash crash” rattled investors and exposed flaws such as a lack of cross-market trading halts.

(There is no connection between flash orders, which are now largely phased out of the stock marketplace, and the flash crash moniker that has come to describe the May plunge.)

While flash orders were roundly criticized in the stock market, the ban proposal faced resistance in the options market from the beginning.

Heavyweight exchanges, the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the International Securities Exchange, have argued to preserve the orders, known as step-ups, which give them a small but important edge.

Defenders say flash orders give customers better prices and can save them from paying fees at rival venues that don’t offer the service. Critics say they create a two-tied market that advantages sophisticated investors.

The SEC in April proposed capping option fees, a move meant to shine a light on the market’s tiered pricing structure. The CBOE has said it would challenge this plan, too.

In its recent request for comment, the SEC said that some commentators expressed concerns that a flash order ban could raise access fees unless a fee cap was also instituted.

(Reporting by Jonathan Spicer; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)