LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v JOHN P. BRINK Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-15699, Defendant: John P. Brink, Plaintiff: SEC, State: DC Washington D.C., UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-15699, Securities, Investors, Brink, Complaint Alleges, United States, Exchange Commission, Enserco, Amount, Act, Disgorgement, Equipment, Profits, Prejudgment, Purpose, Purchasing Oil Field, Pipe, Resell, Portion, Annum, Risks, According, Ponzi, Scheme Whereby Monies, Paid, Purported Profits, Brink Misappropriated Investors, Funds, Leo, Selling Enserco Securities , ContentID: 120242369

Case Documents
1 1998-04-09 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 105462
1 pages
TXT
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
BRINK
COMPLAINT ALLEGES
UNITED STATES
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
ENSERCO
AMOUNT
DEFENDANT
ACT
DISGORGEMENT
EQUIPMENT
PROFITS
PREJUDGMENT
PURPOSE
PURCHASING OIL FIELD
PIPE
RESELL
PORTION
ANNUM
RISKS
ACCORDING
PONZI
SCHEME WHEREBY MONIES
PAID
PURPORTED PROFITS
BRINK MISAPPROPRIATED INVESTORS
FUNDS
LEO
SELLING ENSERCO SECURITIES
                   UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

          LITIGATION RELEASE NO.  15699 / April 8, 1998

          SEC V. ENSERCO, INC., D/B/A ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL.
          H-97-0983 (USDC/ND TX Houston Division)

          The  Securities  and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced
          that on April 2, 1998,  the Honorable Kenneth Hoyt, United States
          District Judge, entered a  Final  Judgment against Defendant John
          P. Brink ("Brink").  Without admitting or denying the allegations
          in the Commission's Complaint, Brink  consented to the entry of a
          permanent injunction enjoining him from  future violations of the
          securities  registration  and  anti-fraud  provisions   found  in
          Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,  and
          Section  10(b)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
          10b-5 thereunder. Brink agreed  to  disgorgement in the amount of
          $459,550.66 together with prejudgment  interest  in the amount of
          $137,813.00.  Brink's disgorgement amount was waived based on his
          demonstrated financial inability to pay.

          The  Commission's  Complaint  alleged that the defendants  raised
          approximately $3.6 million from  investors  in  39 states for the
          purpose of purchasing oil field equipment and pipe.   Enserco was
          to  resell  the equipment and return a portion of the profits  to
          investors.  The  Complaint alleged that investors were guaranteed
          returns  of  up to 25%  per  annum,  with  complete  security  of
          principal, and were told that there were no risks associated with
          the investment.   In  fact,  according  to  the  Complaint, Brink
          operated an undisclosed "Ponzi" scheme whereby monies contributed
          by  new  investors  were  paid  as purported profits to  previous
          investors.    Further,   the   Complaint   alleges   that   Brink
          misappropriated investors' funds,  and  Leo  and  Bravo  received
          undisclosed  commissions  for  their  efforts  in selling Enserco
          securities.

SNIPPETS:
  • UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on April 2, 1998, the Honorable Kenneth
  • P. Brink.
  • Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's Complaint, Brink consented
  • Brink agreed to disgorgement in the amount of $459,550.66 together with prejudgment interest
  • The Commission's Complaint alleged that the defendants raised approximately $3.6 million from
  • Enserco was to resell the equipment and return a portion of the profits to investors.
  • The Complaint alleged that investors were guaranteed returns of up to 25% per annum, with
  • In fact, according to the Complaint, Brink operated an undisclosed "Ponzi" scheme whereby
  • Further, the Complaint alleges that Brink misappropriated investors' funds, and Leo and Bravo
  •    |