TopTenDotCons - SEC Submission

[Pages:36]TopTenDotCons - SEC Submission

Filing Date

Matter

Number of Defendants or Respondents

Place of Filing

Net component

Summary Please note that these summaries represent synopses of the SEC's allegations. Review of SEC filings, court documents, administrative proceeding files, and other relevant documents is required for a complete understanding of each action.

1/5/200 SEC. v. Yun Soo Oh Park 0 a/k/a Tokyo Joe and Tokyo Joe's Societe Anonyme, Corp., Case No. 00C 0049 (N.D.Ill.)

2 Defendants

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Internet Website, E-mails, and Internet Bulletin Board Postings

Civil action. The Commission alleges that Park attracted new subscribers with fraudulent track records for his past picks. Allegedly, he fed them "sure thing" picks. The Complaint alleges that he sold into the artificial jump in price caused by their purchases of his picks. The Commission alleges that he failed to disclose compensation for at least one stock he touted and insufficiently disclosed his scalping.

1/31/20 SEC v. Nancy J. Cheal, 00 individually and d/b/a Relief Enterprise, et. al., C.A. No. 00 CV 10182-EFH (D. Mass.)

1 Defendant and 1 Relief Defendant

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Internet Website

Civil Action. The Commission alleges that Cheal, doing business as Relief Enterprises, fraudulently offered and sold investments in a bank debenture trading program by making baseless promises of a 100% weekly return on a website and through other means of solicitation. Allegedly, Cheal or her representatives falsely assured investors that their funds were not at risk and were 100% guaranteed by the U.S. Government.

Monday, October 30, 2000

Page 1 of 42

Filing Date

Matter

Number of Defendants or Respondents

2/10/20 SEC v. , 00 Inc. and Arthur A. Alonzo, 00 Civ. 1018 (AS)(S.D.N.Y.)

2 Defendants

Place of Filing

Net component

Summary Please note that these summaries represent synopses of the SEC's allegations. Review of SEC filings, court documents, administrative proceeding files, and other relevant documents is required for a complete understanding of each action.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Promotion of Development Stage Internet Company

Civil action. The Commission alleges that the defendant used the name of a registered representative of a broker-dealer, and falsely represented to prospective investors that they had the opportunity to purchase E4online stock at $2.00 per share in a "private placement" and that the company planned to issue shares in an initial public offering ("IPO") within a few months at an IPO price of $12.00 per share. Among other things, the Complaint alleges that there was no basis statements about an imminent IPO and that E4online was not in residence at the stated address.

2/16/20 SEC v. Wellness 00 Universe Corporation, Synpan Corporation, George Charles Pappas, Defendants, Paul George Pappas, Kyriak W. Pappas, Makypa, Brooks Williams, Tobias Weissman, Iris B. Coleman, Joann Cingari, and Louise Fiorenza, Relief Defendants. 00 Civ. 1147 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.)

3 Defendants and 8 Relief Defendants

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Internet Press Releases

Civil action. The Commission alleges that, since December 1999, George Pappas caused Wellness and Synpan to issue false and misleading press releases, largely over the internet, which boosted the price of Wellness stock from approximately $.10 per share in December 1999 to over $1.00 per share in early February 2000. The Complaint also alleges that, during this time, 3.7 million shares of Wellness stock was sold by members of George Pappas' family and other associates to the public for an aggregate of approximately $2.5 million.

Monday, October 30, 2000

Page 2 of 42

Filing Date

Matter

Number of Defendants or Respondents

2/24/20 SEC v. James Sheret, Jr. 00 and Glenn E. Conley, No. CIV 1411 (S.D.N.Y.)

2 Defendants

Place of Filing

Net component

Summary Please note that these summaries represent synopses of the SEC's allegations. Review of SEC filings, court documents, administrative proceeding files, and other relevant documents is required for a complete understanding of each action.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

E-mail Spam Messages

Civil action. The Commission alleges that Sheret and Conley sent "spams" to manipulate the stock price of 57 thinly traded companies. Allegedly, the spams were prepared under the banner "AOL Investment Snapshot" to appear endorsed by America Online, Inc. In fact, AOL had not endorsed these investment recommendations. According to the Complaint, both Sheret and Conley sold their shares immediately after sending the spams, realizing substantial profits.

2/24/20 SEC v. Peter Lybrand 00 f/k/a Peter Tosto, et al., 00 Civ. 1387 (S.D.N.Y.)

19 Defendants and 2 Relief Defendants

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Internet Press Releases

Civil action. The Commission alleges that barred broker Lybrand and several others used a series of domestic and offshore entities owned or controlled by Lybrand to manipulate the shares of three shell corporations, netting profits of $12 million. Allegedly, Lybrand et al. used matched orders, wash trades, false press releases, and ticker spam in the scheme. Lybrand was arrested for his part in the scam.

2/28/20 In the Matter of Joseph 00 Stephenson, individually, and d/b/a Stephenson Investment Opportunities (Admin.Proc. File No. 3-10153)

1 Respondent

Administrative Proceeding

Internet Website

Administrative proceeding. The Commission found that Stephenson used fictitious business name to establish a website through which he offered for sale unregistered securities in the form of "bank debenture forfeiting" and/or "block funds trades"; claimed a historical record of 500% returns; and made no reasonable attempts to verify whether the claims he made were true or whether the securities in fact existed.

Monday, October 30, 2000

Page 3 of 42

Filing Date

Matter

Number of Defendants or Respondents

3/2/200 SEC v. Douglas W. Colt, 0 1:00CV00423 (EGS)(D.D.C.)

1 Defendant

3/2/200 In the Matter of 0 Kenneth Terrell, Jason Wyckoff, Adam Altman and Joanne Colt (Admin.Proc. File No. 3-10154)

4 Respondents

3/9/200 SEC v. American 0 Imaging, Inc., et al., 00-0940-CIV-Moreno (S.D. Fla.)

3 Defendants

Place of Filing

Net component

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Internet Website

Summary Please note that these summaries represent synopses of the SEC's allegations. Review of SEC filings, court documents, administrative proceeding files, and other relevant documents is required for a complete understanding of each action.

Civil action. The Commission alleges that Colt, the creator of a stock recommendation website, targeted low priced, thinly traded stocks knowing that his trades and subscriber activity would artificially increase the price of the stocks selected. Allegedly, Colt and the other participants in the scheme collectively purchased a significant volume of the selected stock and dumped the stock shortly before the website disseminated its recommendations to its subscribers.

Administrative Proceeding

Internet Website

Administrative proceeding. The Commission found that the respondents targeted low priced, thinly traded stocks knowing that trades and subscriber activity would artificially increase the price of the stocks selected. The Commission also found that the respondents collectively purchased a significant volume of the selected stock and dumped the stock shortly before the website disseminated its recommendations to its subscribers.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Internet Press Releases

Civil action. The Commission alleges that the company whose primary business was developing Internet commerce sites issued press releases over the Internet claiming it was buying a soon-to-be-profitable gold mine. Allegedly, American Imaging relied on inadequate test results to reach their conclusion of the mine's profitability, and ignored and failed to disclose other contrary test results.

Monday, October 30, 2000

Page 4 of 42

Filing Date

Matter

Number of Defendants or Respondents

3/14/20 SEC v. John Freeman, et 00 al., 00 Civ. 1963 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.)

19 Defendants

3/20/20 SEC v. 00 L.L.C. and David A. Rudnick, C.A. No. 00-85-PC (D. Me.)

2 Defendants

Place of Filing

Net component

Summary Please note that these summaries represent synopses of the SEC's allegations. Review of SEC filings, court documents, administrative proceeding files, and other relevant documents is required for a complete understanding of each action.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Internet Chat Rooms and E-mail

Civil action. The Commission alleges that 19 defendants who, from 1997 through January 2000, engaged in a widespread insider trading scheme that produced over $8 million in illegal profits from trading in the securities of 23 public companies. According to the Complaint, the source of the inside information worked at two Wall Street investment banking firms, Goldman Sachs & Co. Inc., and Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation. Allegedly, much of the inside information was passed through Internet chat rooms and by e-mail.

U.S. District Court for the District of Maine

Internet Website

Civil action. The Commission alleges that an Internet website provided, on a subscription basis, false and hypothetical day-trading recommendations that linked to a real-time window referred to as the "Trading Floor." Allegedly, Rudnick induced subscribers to trade securities by falsely stating that, through the Trading Floor, they would be able to see the real-time actual trades of a successful day trader and thus be able to profit or approximate the performance of the trader by merely mimicking his trades.

Monday, October 30, 2000

Page 5 of 42

Filing Date

Matter

Number of Defendants or Respondents

3/23/20 SEC v. eCONNECT and 00 Thomas S. Hughes, Civil Action No. CV 00 02959 AHM (C.D. Cal.)

2 Defendants

Place of Filing

Net component

Summary Please note that these summaries represent synopses of the SEC's allegations. Review of SEC filings, court documents, administrative proceeding files, and other relevant documents is required for a complete understanding of each action.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Internet Press Releases

Civil action. The Commission alleges that eConnect issued false and misleading press releases claiming: (1) eConnect and its joint venture partner had a unique licensing arrangement with PalmPilot; and (2) a subsidiary of eConnect had a strategic alliance with a brokerage firm concerning a system that would permit cash transactions over the Internet. The Complaint alleges that the fraudulent press releases, which were disseminated through a wire service as well as by postings on Internet bulletin boards, caused a dramatic rise in the price of eConnect stock from $1.39 on February 28 to a high of $21.88 on March 9, 2000, on heavy trading volume.

3/23/20 SEC v. New World Web 00 , Inc., Capital Corp. Investments International Inc., and Dwight D. Dubose, Civil Action No. 4: 00-CV-0231-Y (N.D. Tex.)

3 Defendants

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division

Internet Websites and E-mail Spams

Civil action. The Commission alleges that fraudulent Internet stock offering by two Internet shopping mall businesses, known as an "e-mall,"as well as other Internet businesses. The Complaint alleges that the two companies were publicly offering and selling unregistered shares of stock through two Internet websites and unsolicited spam e-mail messages. Allegedly, virtually all of the funds raised were misappropriated by CEO to pay personal expenses.

Monday, October 30, 2000

Page 6 of 42

Filing Date

Matter

Number of Defendants or Respondents

3/29/20 SEC v. Thomas E. Loyd, 00 individually, and d/b/a Loyd Financial Consulting, CA-00-CV-1085, (S.D.Tex.)

1 Defendant

3/30/20 SEC v. Fred Moldofsky, 00 00 Civ. 2425 (Baer) (S.D.N.Y.)

1 Defendant

4/4/200 SEC v. Stephen B. Marek 0 and Dominic Roelandt, No. 00-600-PHX-EHC (D. Ariz.)

2 Defendants

Place of Filing

Net component

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

Internet Newsletter and E-mail Spams

Summary Please note that these summaries represent synopses of the SEC's allegations. Review of SEC filings, court documents, administrative proceeding files, and other relevant documents is required for a complete understanding of each action.

Civil action. The Commission alleges that Thomas E. Loyd, an unregistered investment adviser, disseminated of millions of copies of his Investors'Alert newsletter. According to the Complaint, Investors'Alert provided stock recommendations of micro-cap stocks to over 650 subscribers and millions of other investors through "broadcast"facsimiles and unsolicited Internet e-mails, known as "spams." Allegedly, Loyd failed to disclose the amount, source, and nature of compensation paid to him by the touted issuers, and scalped the stocks that the newsletter touted.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Internet Message Board Postings

Civil action. The Commission alleges that Moldofsky posted a fake press release on the Yahoo Finance message board regarding Lucent Technologies, Inc. Allegedly, the release was posted more than twenty times on March 22, 2000 and March 23, 2000.

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

E-Mail Newsletter and Internet Websites

Civil action. The Commission alleges that defendants falsely touted the stock of at least 35 microcap companies through e-mail messages disseminated by free Internet newsletters. According to the Complaint, false and misleading statements regarding the claimed performance of the defendants past stock picks appeared on the Internet websites of all three controlled entities. Allegedly, defendants repeatedly sold their personal holdings of the touted stocks into the resulting inflated market, thereby realizing at least $41,958 and $100,835, respectively.

Monday, October 30, 2000

Page 7 of 42

Filing Date

Matter

Number of Defendants or Respondents

4/7/200 SEC v. Stephen C. Sayre, 0 Independent Financial Reports, Inc. and Silver Screen Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. CV 00-03800WJR, ex (C.D. Cal.)

3 Defendants

4/12/20 SEC v. Alan Gibbons, 00 Civil Action No. 2247 (N.D. Ill.)

1 Defendant

5/1/200 In the Matter of Genesis 0 Trading and Robert Garganese (Admin.Proc. File No. 3-10194)

2 Respondents

Place of Filing

Net component

Summary Please note that these summaries represent synopses of the SEC's allegations. Review of SEC filings, court documents, administrative proceeding files, and other relevant documents is required for a complete understanding of each action.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Internet Postings

Civil action. The Commission alleges that the defendant, a tree trimmer masquerading as a financial analyst, issued recommendations over the Internet touting eConnect as an undervalued company. According to the Complaint, the defendant sold stock held in accounts of Silver Screen into the inflated market scalping profits of $1,435,997.66. Allegedly, each recommendation stated that the defendant did not hold stock in the recommended companies.

U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Internet Website and Internet Message Board Posting

Civil action. Gibbons allegedly raised $172,000 from seven investors, selling them promissory notes and unregistered stock in several companies he started and owned but which ultimately did little or no business. Further, he allegedly told investors their investments were risk-free and guaranteed, and promised 30-50% returns within four months, when in fact he converted the funds to his own personal use.

Administrative Proceeding

Internet Website

Administrative proceeding. The Commission found that convicted felon Garganese ran a website selling subscriptions to day traders, misrepresenting that he and his experienced staff had developed a stock trading system that had an 81% success rate. The Commission also found that Garganese had no staff other than part-time help from two relatives, and his stock picking was done by commercially available software.

Monday, October 30, 2000

Page 8 of 42

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download