LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v RALPH WILLS, III and PROFINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-15451, Defendant: Ralph Wills, III and ProFinancial Advisors, Inc., Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-15451, Wills, Investment, Commission, Act, Securities, Scheme, Exchange Commission, Thereunder, Disgorgement, Representing, Prime Bank, Ralph Wills, Profinancial Advisors, District, Relief, Investment Adviser, Violations, Pay, Amount, Prejudgment, Complaint, Purchase, Prime Bank Notes, Profit, Misrepresenting, Sale, Virtually Risk-free, Unrealistic Predictions, Exorbitant Profits , ContentID: 120242611

Case Documents
1 1997-08-21 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 105705
2 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC LITIGATION RELEASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INVESTMENT
COMMISSION
ACT
SECURITIES
SCHEME
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
THEREUNDER
DISGORGEMENT
REPRESENTING
PRIME BANK
LITIGATION
RALPH WILLS
PROFINANCIAL ADVISORS
DISTRICT
RELIEF
INVESTMENT ADVISER
VIOLATIONS
PAY
AMOUNT
PREJUDGMENT
COMPLAINT
PURCHASE
PRIME BANK NOTES
PROFIT
MISREPRESENTING
SALE
VIRTUALLY RISK-FREE
UNREALISTIC PREDICTIONS
EXORBITANT PROFITS





                    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                              WASHINGTON, D.C.

     Litigation Release No.15451/August 21, 1997

     SEC v. W. Ralph Wills, III and ProFinancial Advisors, Inc.
     (Civil Action No. 1:96-CV-2472-CC, USDC N.D. Ga.)

          The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on July
25,
     1997, the Honorable Clarence Cooper, United States District Judge for
the
     Northern District of Georgia, entered an Order of Permanent Injunction
And
     Other Relief As To W. Ralph Wills ("Wills") and ProFinancial Advisors,
Inc.
     ("ProFinancial"), an Investment Adviser registered with the Commission.
The
     Order enjoins Wills and ProFinancial from future violations of Section
204
     of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Adviser's Act") and Rule 204
1
     thereunder; Section 206(4) of the Adviser's Act and Rule 206(4)
2(a)(5)
     thereunder; Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; and Section
10(b)
     of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

          Wills and ProFinancial were further ordered to pay disgorgement in
the
     amount of $947,950, representing the amount of ill-gotten gains
acquired by
     the defendants from the scheme and prejudgment interest thereon.
Payment
     of the disgorgement and prejudgment interest was waived based upon
sworn
     representations made by Wills and ProFinancial to the Commission that
they
     were financially unable to pay the disgorgement.

          Wills and ProFinancial both consented to the relief without
admitting
     or denying the allegations set forth in a complaint filed by the
SNIPPETS:
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on July
  • 1997, the Honorable Clarence Cooper, United States District Judge for the Northern District
  • Other Relief As To W. Ralph Wills and ProFinancial Advisors, Inc., an Investment Adviser
  • Order enjoins Wills and ProFinancial from future violations of Section
  • of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 204
  • thereunder; Section 206of the Adviser's Act and Rule 2062thereunder; Section 17of the
  • Wills and ProFinancial were further ordered to pay disgorgement in the amount of $947,950,
  • Wills and ProFinancial both consented to the relief without admitting or denying the
  • In its complaint, the Commssion alleged that Wills, through ProFinancial, violated the
  • The scheme involved the purchase of prime bank notes with a face value of $200 million which
  • discount and then resold for a profit.
  • Wills and ProFinancial obtained funds from investors by misrepresenting or failing to
  • Among other misrepresentations made to investors, Wills falsely represented that the
  • For more information, see Litigation Release 15152.
  •    |