LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v LARRY W. ELLIS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-16630, CourtCode: FED, CourtName: THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. THE COURT WILL DETERMINE THE SPECIFIC, Defendant: Larry W. Ellis, Plaintiff: SEC, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-16630, Ellis, Investors, Securities, Atm, Exchange, Commission, Civil, Violations, Antifraud Provisions, Representations, Complaint, Act, Order Enjoined Ellis, Future Violations, Federal Securities Laws, Amount, Disgorgement, Civil Penalty, Commission Accused Ellis, Automated Teller Machine, Repay, Principal Investment, Profit-share, Atm Manufacturing Company, Misleading, Complaint Charged Ellis, Thereunder, Lit , ContentID: 120241483

Case Documents
1 2000-07-17 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 104576
1 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 1 page.    CAUTION.    PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A ONE PAGE CASE.
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC LITIGATION RELEASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INVESTORS
SECURITIES
ATM
EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
CIVIL
BUSINESS
VIOLATIONS
ANTIFRAUD PROVISIONS
REPRESENTATIONS
COMPLAINT
ACT
ORDER ENJOINED ELLIS
FUTURE VIOLATIONS
FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
COURT
AMOUNT
DISGORGEMENT
CIVIL PENALTY
COMMISSION ACCUSED ELLIS
AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE
REPAY
PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT
PROFIT-SHARE
ATM MANUFACTURING COMPANY
MISLEADING
COMPLAINT CHARGED ELLIS
THEREUNDER
LIT
Securities and Exchange Commission

   Litigation Release No. 16630 \ July 17, 2000

   , Civil Action No. 3-00CV1040-P

   On June 30, 2000, Judge Jorge Solis issued an Order of Permanent
   Injunction against Larry W. Ellis, the former operator of a
   Dallas-based business known as ATM Technology Systems. The Order
   enjoined Ellis from future violations of the antifraud provisions of
   the federal securities laws. The Court will determine the specific
   amount of disgorgement and whether a civil penalty should be imposed
   at a later date.

   On May 17, 2000, the Commission accused Ellis of raising approximately
   $1 million from investors with false representations about his
   automated teller machine business. The complaint alleged, among other
   things, that Ellis misrepresented to investors that they would receive
   a secured interest in a specific ATM in return for an initial
   investment of $10,000. Ellis promised to repay the investors their
   principal investment with interest over a three year period, and also
   promised a profit-share interest in the ATM in which they invested.
   Ellis further claimed that he owned an ATM manufacturing company.
   These representations were false and misleading.

   The complaint charged Ellis with violations of the antifraud
   provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
   10(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
   thereunder. (Lit. Rel. 16560, May 22, 2000.)
     _________________________________________________________________

Modified 07/17/2000
SNIPPETS:
  • The Order enjoined Ellis from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal
  • The Court will determine the specific amount of disgorgement and whether a civil penalty
  • On May 17, 2000, the Commission accused Ellis of raising approximately $1 million from
  • The complaint alleged, among other things, that Ellis misrepresented to investors that they
  • Ellis promised to repay the investors their principal investment with interest over a three
  • Ellis further claimed that he owned an ATM manufacturing company.
  • These representations were false and misleading.
  • The complaint charged Ellis with violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 17of the
  • (Lit.
  •    |