 |
Home | Previous Page | |
|
||
 |
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTSSecurities and Exchange Commission Suspends Trading in MB Tech, Inc. for Failure to make Required Periodic FilingsThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension of trading in the securities of MB Tech, Inc. (MBTT), commencing at 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 30, 2008 and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 13, 2008. The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of this issuer due to a lack of current and accurate information about the company because it has failed to file certain periodic reports with the Commission. This order was entered pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The Commission cautions brokers, dealers, shareholders and prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available information and any information subsequently issued by this company. Brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11, at the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered relating to the securities of MB Tech, Inc. unless and until the broker or dealer has strictly complied with all of the provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by the rule, it should refrain from entering quotations relating to the securities of MB Tech, Inc. that have been subject to a trading suspension until such time as it has familiarized itself with the rule and is certain that all of its provisions have been met. Any broker or dealer with questions regarding the rule should contact the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC at (202) 551-5720. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of the rule, the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action. If any broker, dealer or other person has any information which may relate to this matter, they should immediately communicate it to Kara Brockmeyer of the Division of Enforcement at (202) 551-4767, or by e-mail at BrockmeyerK@sec.gov. (Rel. 34-58682) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGSDelinquent Filers' Stock Registrations RevokedThe registrations of the stock of Respondents Camtek Technologies, Inc., Challedon, Inc., Cutty Sark Management, Inc., DMFI, Inc., Far Reach Holdings Ltd., For Sale.com, Inc., Hitchin Post, Inc., Mining, Milling, Manufacturing, & Marketing, Inc. of Nevada, and Western Mountain Mining, Inc., have been revoked. Each had repeatedly failed to file required annual and quarterly reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Thus, each violated a crucial provision of the federal securities laws that requires public corporations to publicly disclose current, accurate financial information so that investors may make informed decisions. The revocations were ordered in an administrative proceeding before an administrative law judge. (Rel. 34-58669; File No. 13175) In the Matter of Anthony A. JamesOn September 29, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Anthony A. James. The Order finds that James was the founder and sole owner of James Asset Advisory, L.L.C. (James Asset), an investment adviser that has never been registered with the Commission. The Order further finds that on September 25, 2008, an order of permanent injunction was entered by consent against James, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Anthony A. James, et al., Civil Action Number 08-61516, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Commission's complaint alleged that, among other things, from at least early 2000 through early 2008, James misused and misappropriated millions of dollars in James Asset client funds to pay for personal expenses and to purchase houses and cars for himself, and to pay other clients seeking to withdraw their funds. The complaint also alleged that James falsely stated to clients that their funds would be invested in securities and managed on their behalf, and that James sent out false account statements to clients, reflecting securities holdings and returns that did not exist. Based on the above, the Order bars James from association with any investment adviser. James consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the Order. (Rel. IA-2793; File No. 3-13252) In the Matter of Rey Salomon, Jr.On September 29, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Rey Salomon, Jr. The Order finds that on September 26, 2008, a final judgment was entered by consent against Salomon, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 15(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rey Salomon, Jr. and Ellen H Development LLC, Civil Action Number 3:08-CV-1695, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Commission's complaint alleged that, in connection with the sale of fractional interests in an oil and gas drilling program, Salomon: misappropriated investor funds; made material misrepresentations and omitted material facts regarding the use of investor funds, investors' liability for the defendants' debts, and the costs of the drilling program; sold unregistered securities; and acted as an unregistered broker-dealer. Based on the above, the Order bars Salomon from association with any broker or dealer, with the right to reapply for association after five years to the appropriate self-regulatory organization, or if there is none, to the Commission. Salomon consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings except as to the entry of the final judgment against him. (Rel. 34-58679; File No. 3-13253) In the Matter of Rudy 45On September 29, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings pursuant to Sections 9(b) and 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Investment Company Act), Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Rule 610(c) of Regulation E against Rudy 45, a Nevada corporation with principal offices located in Santa Monica, California. The Division of Enforcement (the Division) alleges that Rudy 45 violated Sections 17(g), 18(i), 18(d), 23(a), and 56(a) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder, by issuing shares for services, issuing convertible securities with voting rights unequal to those of the common shares, issuing warrants without approval of its shareholders, failing to establish a board composed of a majority of disinterested directors, and failing to obtain a fidelity bond. The Division also alleges that Rudy 45 violated Regulation E because it did not file offering-status reports in connection with securities offerings under Regulation E. Finally, the Division alleges that Rudy 45 failed to file certain reports required under the Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether Rudy 45 should be ordered to cease and desist from committing future violations of Sections 17(g), 18(i), 18(d), 23(a), and 56(a) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder, pay penalties and disgorgement, be permanently suspended from issuing securities under Regulation E, and whether to suspend or revoke the registration of each class of Rudy 45's securities pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act. (Rel. 33-8963; File No. 3-13254) In the Matter of Starinvest Group, Inc.On September 29, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist and Exemption Suspension Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, and Permanently Suspending the Regulation E Exemption Pursuant to Section 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 610(c) of Regulation E (Order) against StarInvest Group, Inc. (StarInvest). The Order finds that StarInvest had, among other things, issued rights to purchase securities without expiration to non security holders, issued shares for services or property other than cash, and failed to establish a majority of disinterested directors on its board. As a result, StarInvest violated Sections 18(d), 23(a), and 56(a), respectively, of the Investment Company Act. In addition, StarInvest failed to obtain a fidelity bond as required under Section 17(g) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder, and failed to implement a compliance program as required under Investment Company Act Rule 38a-1. Finally, StarInvest failed to comply with Rule 609 of Regulation E because it did not file certain offering-status reports on Form 2-E in connection with securities offerings under Regulation E commenced in March 2004, May 2005, and January 2007. Based on the above, the Order permanently suspends the Regulation E exemption and orders StarInvest to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(g), 18(d), 23(a), and 56(a) of the Investment Company Act and Rules 17g-1 and 38a-1 thereunder. StarInvest consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings. (Rel. 33-8964; File No. 3-13255) In the Matter of Green Globe International, Inc.On September 29, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist and Exemption Suspension Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, and Permanently Suspending the Regulation E Exemption Pursuant to Section 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 610(c) of Regulation E (Order) against Green Globe International, Inc. (GGI). The Order finds that GGI had, among other things, issued rights to purchase securities without expiration to its non-security holders, issued prohibited non-voting stock, and improperly repurchased its own shares. As a result, GGI violated Sections 18(d), 18(i), and 23(c), respectively, of the Investment Company Act. In addition, from January 25, 2005, through August 9, 2006, GGI did not obtain a fidelity bond as required under Section 17(g) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder. Finally, GGI failed to comply with Rule 609 of Regulation E because it did not file offering status reports on Form 2-E in connection with a securities offering under Regulation E commenced in January 2005. Based on the above, the Order permanently suspends the Regulation E exemption and orders GGI to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(g), 18(d), 18(i), and 23(c) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder. GGI consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings. (Rel. 33-8965; File No. 3-13256) In the Matter of CLX Medical, Inc.On September 29, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist and Exemption Suspension Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, and Permanently Suspending the Regulation E Exemption Pursuant to Section 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 610(c) of Regulation E (Order) against CLX Medical, Inc. (CLX). The Order finds that CLX had, among other things, issued senior securities without adequate asset coverage, rights to purchase securities without expiration to non-security holders, issued prohibited non-voting stock, and failed to establish a majority of disinterested directors on its board. As a result, CLX violated Sections 18(a), 18(d), 18(i), and 56(a) respectively, of the Investment Company Act. In addition, from September 13, 2004, through July 27, 2006, CLX did not obtain a fidelity bond, as required under Section 17(g) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder, and never implemented a compliance program as required under Investment Company Act Rule 38a-1. Finally, CLX failed to comply with Rule 609 of Regulation E because it did not file offering-status reports on Form 2-E in connection with a securities offering under Regulation E commenced in September 2004. Based on the above, the Order permanently suspends the Regulation E exemption and orders CLX to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(g), 18(a), 18(i), 18(d), and 56(a) of the Investment Company Act and Rules 17g-1 and 38a-1 thereunder. CLX consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings. (Rel. 33-8966; File No. 3-13257) In the Matter of S3 Investment Company, Inc.On September 29, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist and Exemption Suspension Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, and Permanently Suspending the Regulation E Exemption Pursuant to Section 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 610(c) of Regulation E (Order) against S3 Investment Company, Inc. (S3). The Order finds that S3 had, among other things, issued rights to purchase its securities without expiration to non- security holders, issued stock with unequal voting rights, issued securities for services or property other than cash, and issued stock below net asset value. As a result, S3 violated Sections 18(d), 18(i), and 23(b) respectively, of the Investment Company Act. In addition, S3 failed to obtain a fidelity bond as required under Section 17(g) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder, and it also failed to appoint a chief compliance officer as required under Investment Company Act Rule 38a-1. Finally, S3 failed to comply with Rules 609 of Regulation E because it did not file an offering status report on Form 2-E in connection with securities offerings under Regulation E commenced in April and September 2004. Based on the above, the Order permanently suspends the Regulation E exemption and orders S3 to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of 17(g), 18(d), 18(i), and 23(b) of the Investment Company Act and Rules 17g-1 and 38a-1 thereunder. S3 consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings. (Rel. 33-8967; File No. 3-13258) In the Matter of Aero Performance Products, Inc.On September 29, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist and Exemption Suspension Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, and Permanently Suspending the Regulation E Exemption Pursuant to Section 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 610(c) of Regulation E (Order) against AERO Performance Products, Inc. (AERO). The Order finds that AERO had, among other things, issued debt securities without adequate asset coverage, issued rights to purchase securities without expiration to non-security holders without the authorization of its shareholders and a majority of its disinterested directors, and issued prohibited non-voting stock. As a result, AERO violated Sections 18(a), 18(d), and 18(i), respectively, of the Investment Company Act. In addition, AERO failed to obtain a fidelity bond as required under Section 17(g) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder. Finally, AERO failed to comply with Rule 609 of Regulation E because it did not file an offering status report on Form 2-E in connection with a securities offering under Regulation E commenced in December 2004. Based on the above, the Order permanently suspends the Regulation E exemption and orders AERO to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(g), 18(a), 18(d), and 18(i), of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder. AERO consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings. (Rel. 33-8968; File No. 3-13259) Commission Orders Hearings on Registration Suspension or Revocation Against MB Tech, Inc. for Failure to Make Required Periodic FilingsIn conjunction with this trading suspension, the Commission today also instituted a public administrative proceeding to determine whether to revoke or suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months the registration of each class of the securities of MB Tech, Inc. for failure to make required periodic filings with the Commission. In the Matter of MB Tech, Inc. Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-13260. In the Order, the Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that the respondent is delinquent in its required periodic filings with the Commission. In these proceedings, instituted pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(j), a hearing will be scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing, the judge will hear evidence from the Division and the respondent to determine whether the allegations of the Division contained in the Orders, which the Division alleges constitute failures to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder, are true. The judge in the proceedings will then determine whether the registration pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 of the securities of this respondent should be revoked or suspended for a period not exceeding twelve months. The Commission ordered that the Administrative Law Judge issue an initial decision not later than 120 days from the date of service of the order instituting proceedings. (Rel. 34-58683; File No. 3-13260) In the Matter of American Investors NetworkOn September 30, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings, Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (Order) against Cassie E. Morris. The Order finds that Morris, a resident of Denver, Colorado, willfully violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by soliciting investors interests in a purported advertising program under the names American Investors Network and Fairweather Management in exchange for transaction-based compensation. Morris knew or was reckless in not knowing that representations she made about the scheme's business, profits, and use of investor funds were false. Based on the above, the Order directs Morris to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; bars Morris from association with any broker or dealer, with the right to reapply for association after three years, and orders Morris to pay disgorgement of $29,800 plus prejudgment interest, but waives the payment of such amounts and does not impose a penalty based on Morris' sworn financial statements. Morris consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings therein. (Rel. 33-8969; File No. 3-13261) In the Matter of American Investors NetworkOn September 30, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings, Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (Order) against Matt J. Cunningham. The Order finds that Cunningham, a resident of Denver, Colorado, willfully violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by soliciting investors interests in a purported advertising program under the names American Investors Network (AIN) and Fairweather Management (Fairweather) in exchange for transaction-based compensation. Cunningham knew or was reckless in not knowing that representations he made about the scheme's business, profits, and use of investor funds were false. Cunningham also set up bank accounts to process investment funds and related payments to investors in exchange for a fee from AIN or Fairweather. Based on the above, the Order directs Cunningham to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; bars Cunningham from association with any broker or dealer, with the right to reapply for association after five years, and orders Cunningham to pay disgorgement of $43,100 plus prejudgment interest, but waives the payment of such amounts and does not impose a penalty based on Cunningham's sworn financial statements. Cunningham consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings therein. (Rel. 33-8970; File No. 3-13262) SEC Charges Stephen R. Moynahan with Failing to Supervise Broker Who Defrauded Pennsylvania School DistrictsThe Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Stephen R. Moynahan, the former president and chief executive officer of Dolphin & Bradbury, Incorporated, formerly a registered broker-dealer based in Philadelphia, for failing reasonably to supervise Robert J. Bradbury, an investment banker and co-owner of the firm, who defrauded certain unsophisticated investors, including Pennsylvania school districts. According to the Commission's Order, Bradbury engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which he offered and sold primarily to various Pennsylvania school districts a series of risky, short-term, tax-exempt notes underwritten by Dolphin & Bradbury to finance a speculative golf course project. As president of Dolphin & Bradbury, Moynahan was generally responsible for firm supervision, and the firm's procedures expressly assigned certain supervisory duties to him. Moynahan failed to review the firm's written supervisory procedures, failed to establish, or delegate to anyone else responsibility for establishing reasonable supervisory procedures with respect to the firm's underwriting business, failed to adequately comply with many of the provisions of the written supervisory procedures that were in place, and failed to supervise or affirmatively delegate to anyone else responsibility for supervising Bradbury. For example, although Moynahan was responsible for reviewing exception reports, he failed to read an exception report that explicitly flagged the purchase of the notes as potentially unsuitable investments for the school districts. Moreover, Moynahan failed to supervise the conduct of the municipal securities activities of Dolphin & Bradbury and Bradbury, in violation of Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) Rule G-27. Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, Moynahan consented to the entry of an Order by the Commission that: requires him to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of MSRB Rule G-27; bars him from association in a supervisory or proprietary capacity with any broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer; suspends him from associating with any broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer for a period of six months; and requires him to pay disgorgement of $1 and a civil money penalty of $140,000. The disgorgement and civil penalty will be distributed back to the injured investors. The Commission filed a civil injunctive action against Bradbury and others in August 2006 alleging that Bradbury defrauded the Pennsylvania school districts and charging him with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. For further information, see Litigation Release No. 19792 (August 3, 2006). (Rel. 34-58689; File No. 3-13263) In the Matter of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Christy L. Shaffer, and Mary B. BennettOn September 30, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Order) against Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Inspire), and the company's Chief Executive Officer, Christy L. Shaffer (Shaffer) and former Senior Vice President, Communications, Mary B. Bennett (Bennett), concerning disclosures that Inspire made about the details of a clinical trial required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of Inspire's dry-eye drug, diquafosol tetrasodium (diquafosol). The Order finds that Shaffer and Bennett were responsible for Inspire's disclosure decisions concerning the details of the diquafosol program, and that Inspire's Forms 10-Q for the first three quarters of its fiscal year 2004 described the clinical trial as "confirmatory" and stated that diquafosol had to "replicate" the efficacy demonstrated in an earlier clinical trial. In the context of other public statements made by Inspire and Shaffer concerning diquafosol, these statements created the impression that the particular standard by which diquafosol had to demonstrate efficacy in the new clinical trial, the primary endpoint, was the same as a primary endpoint that diquafosol had successfully achieved in a previous clinical trial. In fact, the primary endpoint was different from the primary endpoints of previous clinical trials for diquafosol. On February 9, 2005, Inspire announced that diquafosol had failed to achieve the trial's primary endpoint, which the company specifically identified for the first time. Inspire's stock closed at $8.88 per share, representing a drop of more than 44 percent from the previous day's close of $16 per share. Based on the above, the Order: (a) finds that Inspire violated Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder, and that Shaffer and Bennett caused those violations; (b) orders that Inspire cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder; and (c) orders Shaffer and Bennett to cease and desist from causing any violations and any future violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder. Inspire, Shaffer, and Bennett consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings. (Rel. 34-58690; File No. 3-13264) In the Matter of Michael LauerOn September 30, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Notice of Hearing (Order) against Michal Lauer (Respondent), who was the founder, sole manager and principal owner of Lancer Management Group, LLC and Lancer Management Group II, LLC who acted as the investment manager for Lancer Offshore, Inc., Lancer Partners, LP, Omnifund, Ltd., LSPV, Inc. and LSPV, LLC (collectively the Funds). The Order is based on the entry of a permanent injunction against Lauer for violating Sections 17(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, both individually and as a control person pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act, based on the District Court's finding that Lauer had violated these provisions as a matter of law. The 67-page Opinion and Order contained 80 paragraphs of factual findings and 19 pages of legal conclusions showing that from 1999 through 2003, Respondent violated the federal securities laws that served as the basis of the permanent injunction. The Court specifically found that Respondent conducted an elaborate scheme to defraud investors, including artificially inflating the Funds' net asset values, writing and issuing false and misleading PPMs and investor newsletters, and providing sham portfolios to investors. The Court further found that Respondent's conduct was egregious, pervasive, premeditated and resulted in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in investors' funds and that Respondent's scienter is highlighted by the pains he took to hide the contents of the portfolios and the intricate nature of the fraud. A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are true, to provide Respondent an opportunity to dispute these allegations, and to determine what, if any, remedial sanctions are appropriate and in the public interest. The Order requires the Administrative Law Judge to issue an initial decision no later than 210 days from the date of service of the Order. (Rel. IA-2794; File No. 3-13265) In the Matter of Atlantis Technology GroupOn September 30, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist and Exemption Suspension Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, and Permanently Suspending the Regulation E Exemption Pursuant to Section 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 610(c) of Regulation E (Order) against Atlantis Technology Group (Atlantis). The Order finds that Atlantis had, among other things, issued rights to purchase securities without expiration to non-security holders, issued shares for services or property other than cash, and failed to establish a majority of disinterested directors on its board. As a result, Atlantis violated Sections 18(d), 23(a), and 56(a), respectively, of the Investment Company Act. In addition, Atlantis failed to obtain a fidelity bond as required under Section 17(g) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder, and failed to implement a compliance program as required under Investment Company Act Rule 38a-1. Finally, Atlantis failed to comply with Rule 609 of Regulation E because it did not file offering-status reports on Form 2-E in connection with securities offerings under Regulation E commenced in June 2003, October 2003, December 2003, and July 2004. Based on the above, the Order permanently suspends the Regulation E exemption and orders Atlantis to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(g), 18(d), 23(a), and 56(a) of the Investment Company Act and Rules 17g-1 and 38a-1 thereunder. Atlantis consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings. (Rel. 33-8971); File No. 3-13266 In the Matter of American Energy Production, Inc.On September 30, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist and Exemption Suspension Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, and Permanently Suspending the Regulation E Exemption Pursuant to Section 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 610(c) of Regulation E (Order) against American Energy Production, Inc. (American Energy). The Order finds that American Energy had, among other things, issued senior securities without the required asset coverage, issued rights to purchase securities without expiration to non-security holders, issued prohibited non-voting stock, issued securities for services, failed to make and keep required records; and failed to establish a majority of disinterested directors on its board. As a result, American Energy violated Sections 18(a), 18(d), 18(i), 23(a), 31(a)(1), and 56(a) respectively, of the Investment Company Act and Investment Company Act Rule 31a-1. In addition, American Energy failed to obtain a fidelity bond as required under Section 17(g) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder, and failed to implement a compliance program as required under Investment Company Act Rule 38a-1. Finally, American Energy failed to comply with Rule 609 of Regulation E because it did not file offering status reports on Form 2-E in connection with a securities offering under Regulation E commenced in January 2004. Based on the above, the Order permanently suspends the Regulation E exemption and orders American Energy to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(g), 18(a), 18(d), 18(i), 23(a), 31(a)(1) and 56(a) of the Investment Company Act and Rules 17g-1, 31a-1, and Rule 38a-1 thereunder. American Energy consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings. (Rel. 33-8972); File No. 3-13267 In the Matter of Global Beverage Solutions, Inc.On September 30, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist and Exemption Suspension Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, and Permanently Suspending the Regulation E Exemption Pursuant to Section 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 610(c) of Regulation E (Order) against Global Beverage Solutions, Inc. The Order finds that Global Beverage Solutions, Inc. (Global Beverage) has, among other things, issued rights to purchase its securities without expiration to non-security holders, issued prohibited non-voting stock, and issued shares for services or property other than cash or securities. As a result, Global Beverage violated Sections 18(d), 18(i), and 23(a), respectively, of the Investment Company Act. In addition, Global Beverage failed to obtain a fidelity bond as required under Section 17(g) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder. Finally, Global Beverage failed to comply with Rule 609 of Regulation E because it did not file an offering status report on Form 2-E in connection with securities offerings under Regulation E commenced in June 2003, June 2005, January 2006, March 2006 and January 2007. Based on the above, the Order permanently suspends the Regulation E exemption and orders Global Beverage to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(g), 18(d), 18(i), and 23(a) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 17g-1 thereunder. Global Beverage consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings. (Rel. 33-8973); File No. 3-13268 SEC Charges California Biotechnology Company for Fraudulent Stock SchemeThe Commission announced that it charged Rancho Cordova, Calif.-based Telomolecular Corp. and two of its former executives for their roles in a stock scheme based on false claims to investors that the biotechnology start-up company was on the verge of financial and scientific success in developing anti-aging treatments and cancer cures. The SEC alleges that Telomolecular and its founder and former CEO, Matthew A. Sarad of Folsom, Calif., induced hundreds of investors nationwide to purchase $6.5 million worth of shares of Telomolecular stock. According to the SEC's complaint, Telomolecular and Sarad falsely claimed the company was backed by a deep management and scientific team, generating significant industry interest in its technologies, and prepared to obtain financing from substantial institutions. Instead, the complaint alleges that the company lacked the management professionals and extensive scientific staff it claimed, the supposed interest in its technologies did not exist, and the potential source of financing it touted was a sole proprietorship with no assets. The SEC also charged Telomolecular's former Director of Investor Relations, Jeremy D. Jobe of Dallas for his role in the stock sales. The SEC's complaint, filed in federal district court in Sacramento, further alleges that Jobe improperly sold approximately $2.5 million in Telomolecular stock to investors without being registered as a broker. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Telomolecular, Sarad and Jobe have agreed to settle the SEC's charges. Sarad has consented to being enjoined from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 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 thereunder, and has agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty and be barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years. Jobe has consented to an injunction against future violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and to an administrative order barring him from association with a securities broker or dealer for three years. Telomolecular has consented to an injunction against future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and to an administrative order revoking the registration of its securities under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. For more information see Administrative Proceeding in the Matter of Telomolecular Corp. - Rel. 34-58652; File No. 3-13238). [SEC v. Matthew A. Sarad, Jeremy D. Jobe, and Telomolecular Corp., Case No. 2:08-cv-02252-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal. filed Sept. 25, 2008)] (LR-20745) Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment and Enters Permanent Injunction Against Michael Lauer in Major Hedge Fund Fraud CaseThe Commission announced that on September 23, 2008, the Honorable Kenneth A. Marra, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment, in part, against Michael Lauer, the architect of a $1.1 billion hedge fund fraud scheme. The Court found that Lauer's fraud as head of Lancer Management Group and Lancer Management Group II that acted as hedge fund advisers was "egregious, pervasive, premeditated and resulted in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in investors' funds." In its 67-page order, the Court found Lauer materially overstated the hedge funds' valuations for the years 1999-2002, manipulated the prices of seven securities that were a material portion of the funds' portfolios from November 1999 through at least April 2003, failed to provide any basis for the exorbitant valuations of the shell corporations that saturated the funds' portfolios, lied to investors about the hedge funds actual holdings by providing them with fake portfolios; and falsely represented the hedge funds' holdings in newsletters. The Court permanently enjoined Lauer from further violating Sections 17(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933; Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), both individually and as a control person pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The order reserved ruling on the amount of disgorgement Lauer should pay until the Court conducts an evidentiary hearing, and gave the SEC sixty days to propose a civil money penalty amount that Lauer should pay. Lauer raised more than $1.1 billion from investors and his fraudulent actions resulted in investor losses of approximately $500 million. The SEC initially won emergency temporary restraining orders and asset freezes against Lauer and his companies, which were placed under the control of a Court-appointed receiver. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Michael Lauer, et al., Case No. 03-80612-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla.) (LR-20751) Steven Wevodau, Former Finance Officer of Bisys, Settles Fraud Charges by Agreeing to Pay $225,000 and Consenting to a Permanent Injunction and a Five-Year Officer and Director BarOn September 29, 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charging Steven Wevodau, former vice president of finance for the Insurance and Education Services group of the BISYS Group, Inc., with violating the antifraud and internal controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and with aiding and abetting BISYS's violations of the Exchange Act's financial reporting, books-and-records and internal controls provisions. Wevodau has agreed to settle the case, without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations. The Commission's complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that from at least July 2000 until at least March 2002, Wevodau was the senior financial official in the business unit that included BISYS's Insurance Services division, which was largely responsible for the company's reported growth during the period. Wevodau allegedly responded to senior management's focus on meeting aggressive, short-term earnings projections by encouraging and directing personnel in Insurance Services' finance department to meet earnings targets by applying a variety of fraudulent or otherwise improper accounting practices. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Wevodau caused the company to:
These accounting practices allegedly substantially inflated BISYS's operating results for the quarters ended September 30, 2000 and December 31, 2000, and for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2001 and 2002 (fiscal years 2001 and 2002) and contributed substantially to the company's eventual restatement of over $100 million of Insurance Services' reported income for fiscal years 2001 through 2003. As a result of his conduct, the complaint alleges that Wevodau, directly and indirectly, violated Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder, and is liable, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, as an aider and abettor of BISYS's violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Wevodau has agreed to settle the charges by consenting to the entry of a permanent injunction against further violations of the foregoing provisions, to pay disgorgement, penalties and prejudgment interest totaling approximately $225,000, and to be barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years. [Securities and Exchange Commission v. Steven Wevodau, 08-Civ-8348(GBD)(S.D.N.Y.)] [LR-20756 (September 30, 2008)]. BISYS previously consented, without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations against it, to the entry of a judgment enjoining the company from violating the financial reporting, books-and-records, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws and ordering that it pay $25 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. [LR-20125 (May 23, 2007)]. In addition, David Blain, one of the directors of Insurance Services' finance department, consented, without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, to an order finding that he willfully aided and abetted and caused BISYS's violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder, requiring him to cease and desist from future violations, and denying him the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant, with a right to apply for reinstatement after one year. [AAE Release No. 2882 (Sept. 19, 2008)]. (LR-20756) SEC v. Leonard L. Zanello, Sr., Ihor A. "Gary" Humesky, Steven B. Rodd, and Robert F. Broege, Jr.,The Commission announced today that an application for an order to show cause why defendant Steven B. Rodd ("Rodd") should not be held in civil contempt was filed by the Commission on September 26, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, based on his failure to pay disgorgement and civil penalties, as directed by the Court's August 30, 2007 order. The Commission's application alleged that Rodd and others made material misrepresentations and omissions while selling investments on behalf of LinkTel Communications, Inc. ("LinkTel"), an Atlanta, Georgia company that sold and operated pay telephones. Rodd represented to potential investors that he had investigated LinkTel and that it was a profitable company. The application further alleged that Rodd did not reasonably investigate LinkTel's financial status. Rodd further represented that LinkTel was a safe investment because the investment was fully insured. In fact, LinkTel was an insolvent ponzi scheme. On January 28, 2003, an Order of Permanent Injunction was issued against Rodd, which enjoined him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Rodd consented to the entry of the order without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's Complaint, which was filed on December 10, 2002. Upon motion by the Commission, the Court entered a Final Judgment against Rodd on August 30, 2007, ordering him to pay disgorgement and civil penalties in the respective amounts of $156,366 and $50,000. Rodd has failed to make any payments on the Final Judgment. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Leonard L. Zanello, Sr., Ihor A."Gary" Humesky, Steven B. Rodd, and Robert F. Broege, Jr., Civil Action Number 1:02-CV-3308 (N.D. Ga.) (LR-20757) SEC Files Settled Insider Trading Action Against Randolph Leone and Randall Clark WallOn September 29, the Securities Commission filed an insider trading action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Randolph Leone and Randall Clark Wall. The Commission alleges that Leone and Wall engaged in unlawful insider trading in the securities of ACR Group, Inc. in advance of a public announcement on July 5, 2007 that ACR Group had executed a definitive agreement with Watsco, Inc., a New York Stock Exchange issuer, pursuant to which Watsco would acquire ACR Group's outstanding common stock in a tender offer. In its complaint, the Commission alleges that, in June and July 2007, Leone and Wall purchased ACR Group securities based on material, non-public information regarding the tender offer of ACR Group by Watsco. The Commission alleges that Leone learned of the pending ACR Group/Watsco transaction when he overheard a telephone conversation between his wife and the wife of ACR Group's in-house general counsel telephoned (they are sisters). Leone understood that the information was confidential and knew that the source, either directly or indirectly, was an employee of ACR Group. Nevertheless, he purchased 4,000 ACR Group shares on July 2, while in possession of that material, nonpublic information. He tendered the shares on August 10, 2007, profiting $7,866.00. Wall, a former employee of a supplier to both ACR Group and Watsco, learned of the pending ACR Group/Watsco transaction from his supervisor, who was informed of the deal, in confidence, by Watsco's senior vice president. Shortly thereafter, Wall's supervisor informed Wall, noting that the information was confidential. While in possession of this material nonpublic information, Wall, on June 25, 2007, purchased 3,000 ACR shares. He ultimately sold those shares, realizing a profit of approximately $6,243.00. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Leone and Wall have agreed to settle the Commission's charges by consenting to the entry of final judgments that would: (i) permanently enjoin them from further violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder; (ii) order them to pay disgorgement of $7,866 and $6,243, respectively; (iii) order them to pay prejudgment interest of $406.58 and $322.68, respectively; and (iv) order them to pay civil penalties of $3,933 and $6,243, respectively. In accepting Leone's settlement, the Commission took into account his significant cooperation in the staff's investigation, including the fact that he came forward prior to being contacted by staff, reported his trades, and worked promptly with the staff to resolve the matter. [SEC v. Randolph Leone and Randall Clark Wall, Civil Action No. 3-08CV1686-L, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division)] (LR-20758) SEC Charges Silicon Valley Ceo and Friend With Insider TradingThe Commission today charged the former President and CEO of Santa Clara, Calif. technology company Genesis Microchip, Inc. with insider trading. The Commission alleges that Elias Antoun, who resides in San Jose, bought Genesis stock while in the midst of confidential merger negotiations with STMicroelectronics, one of the world's largest semiconductor companies. The Commission also charged Antoun's childhood friend, Samir Abed of Thousand Oaks, who purchased Genesis stock and options after learning of the merger negotiations from Antoun. Both Antoun and Abed, who netted profits of approximately $33,975 and $51,206, respectively, when the merger was announced, agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations. The Commission's complaint, filed in federal district court in San Jose, alleges that Genesis, a supplier of image processors for flat-panel TVs and monitors, engaged in confidential discussions in the fall of 2007 with Geneva, Switzerland-based STMicroelectronics. Shortly after receiving a letter of intent under which STM would acquire Genesis at a significant premium above Genesis' current stock price, Antoun began purchasing shares of Genesis stock in the brokerage accounts of a relative and a friend. The Commission also alleges that Antoun discussed the pending merger in confidence with his friend Abed; unbeknownst to Antoun, Abed used the information to purchase shares of Genesis stock and call options. After news of the merger was announced on December 11, 2007, Genesis's stock price skyrocketed 57 percent. Shortly thereafter, Antoun sold the Genesis stock in his relative's and friend's accounts, and Abed sold his Genesis stock and options, for thousands of dollars in illicit profits. Antoun and Abed are both charged with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Both Antoun and Abed have agreed to be enjoined from future violations of the securities laws. Antoun has agreed to pay $37, 299.42 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest (which includes profits from a previous trade prior to a Genesis earnings announcement) and a financial penalty of $36,210. Abed has agreed to pay $53,362.62 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a penalty of $25,603. The Commission took into consideration Abed's cooperation during the staff's investigation in accepting his settlement. [SEC v. Samir I. Abed and Elias J. Antoun, Case No. C-08-4549 (HRL) (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 30, 2008)] (LR-20759) SEC Charges East Coast Supermarket Operator Penn Traffic With Accounting FraudThe Securities and Exchange Commission today charged East Coast supermarket operator and wholesale food distributor The Penn Traffic Company with fraud for orchestrating multi-million dollar accounting schemes that inflated its operating income and overstated its after tax net income. The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleges that Syracuse, N.Y.-based Penn Traffic carried out the accounting fraud over multiple reporting periods, and failed to file certain required financial reports with the SEC or filed reports that did not fully comply with SEC regulations. Penn Traffic agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations in the Complaint and consented to the entry of a Court order enjoining it from violating the antifraud, books and records, internal controls, and periodic reporting provisions of the federal securities laws. Penn Traffic also agreed to certain undertakings that require it to employ an independent examiner, among other things. The settlement is subject to the Court's approval. According to the SEC's complaint, Penn Traffic intentionally inflated its operating income and other financial results by prematurely recognizing promotional allowances in a scheme that lasted from approximately the second quarter of Penn Traffic's fiscal year 2001 through at least the fourth quarter of its FY 2003. Promotional allowances - also referred to as rebates, slotting fees, or vendor allowances - are fees paid from vendors in exchange for various marketing and promotional activities, such as inclusion in a supermarket's weekly circular. As a result of Penn Traffic's willful misconduct, the company prematurely recorded a total of approximately $10 million in operating income and reported these false results in financial reports filed with the Commission. The SEC's complaint also alleges a separate scheme from at least the first quarter of Penn Traffic's FY 2000 through the first quarter of its FY 2003. Penn Traffic recorded fraudulent entries to the books and records of Penny Curtiss, its wholly-owned bakery manufacturing subsidiary that has since closed. For example, Penny Curtiss fabricated accounting records to overstate inventory and reduce cost of goods sold. As a result, Penn Traffic overstated after tax net income by more than $7 million and reported these false results in financial reports filed with the Commission. The SEC's complaint further alleges that Penn Traffic failed to file financial reports or filed non-compliant reports with the Commission between the fourth quarter of its FY 2003 and the fourth quarter of its FY 2008. Penn Traffic has consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. The SEC previously charged two former senior Penn Traffic executives and one Penny Curtiss executive for their roles in the fraudulent schemes alleged in the complaint. The Commission's case is pending against Leslie H. Knox, Penn Traffic's former Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer, and Linda J. Jones, Penn Traffic's former Vice President of Non-Perishable Merchandising. In 2005, the Commission obtained a consent judgment against Michael J. Lawler, the former Director of Manufacturing at Penny Curtiss, permanently enjoining him from violating the antifraud and books and records of the securities laws. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this matter. [SEC v. The Penn Traffic Company, 08 Civ. 01035(FJS)(N.D.N.Y)](LR-20760) SEC Sues Prime Bank Promoter and a Hedge Fund's Chief Compliance Officer for FraudThe Commission announced today that on September 29, 2008, it filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, charging David Myatt and William Eichengreen with violating the antifraud provisions of federal securities law based on their conduct involving a now-defunct hedge fund, Directors Performance Fund, LLC (the "Fund"). The Commission's Complaint alleges that Myatt defrauded the Fund by convincing Directors Financial Group, Ltd. ("DFG") - the Fund's investment adviser and managing member - to invest $25 million in a fraudulent "prime bank" scheme. The Complaint alleges that, among other misrepresentations, Myatt falsely claimed that:
In reality, the ATI Program was a sham designed to defraud investors. No trades ever took place and no profits were actually generated. Such "something-for-nothing" trading programs are entirely fictional. Moreover, the Federal Reserve does not oversee any such trading programs or license any individuals to conduct such trading. The Commission's Complaint also alleges that the Fund's Chief Compliance and Chief Marketing Offier, William Eichengreen, (a) defrauded the Fund by falsifying the Fund's financial statements, thereby allowing DFG to take profit-based fees to which it was not entitled, and (b) defrauded prospective investors in the Fund (and DFG's individual investment adviser clients who invested in the Fund) by consistently misrepresenting the Fund's trading strategy, investments, and performance. The Complaint seeks a court order permanently enjoining Eichengreen and Myatt from violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 [Section 17(a)], the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5], and from aiding and abetting violations of record keeping provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [Section 204 and Rule 204-2]. The Complaint also seeks to enjoin Eichengreen from aiding and abetting violations of the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act [Sections 206(1) and 206(2)] and seeks an order requiring Eichengreen and Myatt to pay a civil monetary penalty. The Commission has previously sued DFG and its President, Sharon Vaughn, in connection with this matter. The Commission settled all claims against DFG and Vaughn and the Court distributed the Fund's assets to investors, ensuring that investors received their principal in full. For more information, see Litigation Release Nos. 19589 (Mar. 3, 2006) and 19985 (Jan. 31, 2007). The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois charged Myatt and Warren in connection with this matter. On November 20, 2007, a jury convicted Warren on 11 wire fraud counts in connection with his fraud against DFG. On August 24, 2007, Myatt pled guilty to an obstruction of justice charge based on his misconduct. [SEC v. William H. Eichengreen and David L. Myatt, Case No. 08-C-5564 (N.D. Ill.)] (LR-20761) SECURITIES ACT REGISTRATIONSRECENT 8K FILINGS
http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/2008/dig093008.htm
|