SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. Litigation Release No. 15202 / December 30, 1996 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. NICHOLAS A. RUDI, JOSEPH C. SALEMA, PUBLIC CAPITAL ADVISORS, INC. (formerly known as CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.), GEORGE L. TUTTLE, JR. AND ALEXANDER S. WILLIAMS, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 95 Civ. 1282 (LAK) The Commission announced today that defendants Nicholas A. Rudi ("Rudi") and his financial advisory firm, Public Capital Advisors, Inc. (formerly known as Consolidated Financial Management, Inc.) ("CFM") have agreed to settle this action without admitting or denying the Commission s allegations that Rudi and CFM committed securities fraud by soliciting and receiving more than $200,000 in kickbacks from First Fidelity Securities Group ( FFSG ) in connection with a Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority s February 1990 offering of approximately $237,500,000 of debt securities ("Offering"). Under the terms of the settlement, which has been submitted to the Court for approval, Rudi and CFM would each be enjoined from committing securities fraud and Rudi would be ordered to pay $86,331.40, representing disgorgement of $49,131.63 and prejudgment interest of $37,199.77. Also named in the Complaint were George L. Tuttle, Jr. ("Tuttle") and Alexander S. Williams ("Williams"), both formerly associated with FFSG, which was a registered municipal securities dealer and a division of First Fidelity Bank, N.A. at the time of the transactions and events alleged in the Complaint. The Complaint alleges that, between February and April 1990, Tuttle and Williams caused FFSG to pay CFM the kickbacks, which were shared by Rudi and his then partner Joseph C. Salema ("Salema"). Salema also allegedly solicited and received from Robert J. Jablonski ("Jablonski") an additional $90,000 as a kickback from the finder s fee that FFSG paid to Jablonski relating to the Offering. Tuttle and Williams caused FFSG to pay the kickbacks to CFM through Jablonski's firm and disguised these payments and other related payments on FFSG's municipal securities dealer books and records. Each of the defendants is alleged to have violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5. In addition, Tuttle and Williams are alleged to have violated Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act, which prohibits effecting transactions in municipal securities in contravention of any rule of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ( MSRB ), and MSRB rules G-8 (books and records), G-17 (fair dealing) and G-20 (gifts and gratuities). ==========================================START OF PAGE 2====== Simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, Salema consented, without admitting or denying the allegations, to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Salema also paid $324,764.55, representing disgorgement of the money he received as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint and prejudgment interest. At the same time, Tuttle and Williams, without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint, each consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and MSRB rules G-8, G-17, and G-20. Tuttle and Williams have disgorged $18,171.48 and $4,684.14, respectively, representing the money each received as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint. The disgorgement and prejudgment interest to be paid by Rudi will be held by the Court for the benefit of persons who submit valid claims arising under the federal securities laws by reason of the conduct alleged against defendants in the Complaint. Such claims must be filed within one year after the Court approves the settlement. This past June, Rudi was acquitted in a criminal action of all charges based on the same conduct. For more information, see Litigation Release No. 14421 (Feb. 23, 1995).