LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v DHIREIN PATEL Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-15444, CourtCode: DIS, CourtName: DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN AGAINST DHIREIN, Defendant: Dhirein Patel, Plaintiff: SEC, State: MI Michigan, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-15444, Ross, Patel, Complaint, Exchange Commission, Complaint Alleges, Stock, Securities, District, Cuc, Michigan, Purchase, Dhirein Patel, Eastern District, Civil, Permanent Injunction, Proposed Acquisition, Judgement, Exchange Act, Profits, Price, Pursuant, Taxes, Intended Purchase, Patel Received Profits, Supervisor, Negotiations, Outstanding Stock, Shares, According , ContentID: 120242616

Case Documents
1 1997-08-15 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 105710
2 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC LITIGATION RELEASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PATEL
COMPLAINT
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
COMPLAINT ALLEGES
STOCK
SECURITIES
DISTRICT
CUC
MICHIGAN
PURCHASE
DHIREIN PATEL
COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT
CIVIL
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
PROPOSED ACQUISITION
JUDGEMENT
EXCHANGE ACT
PROFITS
PRICE
PURSUANT
TAXES
INTENDED PURCHASE
PATEL RECEIVED PROFITS
SUPERVISOR
NEGOTIATIONS
OUTSTANDING STOCK
SHARES
ACCORDING





          UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

     Litigation Release No. 15444 / August 15, 1997

     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. DHIREIN PATEL, U.S. District
Court
     for the Eastern District of Michigan, Civil Action No. 97-CV-74151
(E.D.
     Mich. August 13, 1997)

          The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on August
13,
     1997, it filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction in the United
States
     District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Dhirein
Patel,
     a resident of Troy, Michigan.  The Complaint alleges that Patel,
while
     employed at CUC International, Inc., a company based in Stamford,
     Connecticut, engaged in trading of stock in Advance Ross Corporation
while
     in possession of material, nonpublic information concerning CUC's
proposed
     acquisition of Advance Ross.  Advance Ross was formerly a publicly
held
     company based in Chicago, Illinois and is now wholly-owned by CUC.

          Patel has consented, without admitting or denying the allegations
in
     the Complaint, to the entry of Final Judgment and Order of Permanent
     Injunction which will enjoin him from future violations of Section
10(b) of
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
Final
     Judgment will also require Patel to disgorge his profits of $10,390
plus
     prejudgment interest and to pay a civil penalty of $10,390 pursuant
to
     Section 21A of the Exchange Act.

          In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that in late September
or
     early October of 1995, Patel, who was CUC's Director of Taxes, was
SNIPPETS:
  • UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. DHIREIN PATEL, U.S. District Court for the Eastern
  • it filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction in the United States
  • District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Dhirein Patel, a resident of
  • The Complaint alleges that Patel, while employed at CUC International, Inc., a company based
  • Advance Ross was formerly a publicly held company based in Chicago, Illinois and is now
  • Patel has consented, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Complaint, to the
  • Judgment will also require Patel to disgorge his profits of $10,390 plus prejudgment interest
  • In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that in late September or early October of 1995,
  • Complaint further alleges that, On October 16, 1995, when CUC's proposed acquisition of
  • shares of Advance Ross stock.
  • According to the Complaint, on October
  • Advance Ross and CUC publicly announced CUC's intended purchase of Advance Ross' stock.
  • The Complaint alleges that, as a result, the stock price of Advance Ross closed up
  • The Complaint alleges that Patel received profits of $10,390 as a result of this price
  •    |