LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v STEPHEN J. MURPHY Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-15418, Defendant: Stephen J. Murphy, Plaintiff: SEC, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-15418, Murphy, Investments, Securities, Commission, Injunction, Exchange Commission, Violations, Limited Partnership, Atm, Freeze, Assets, Civil, Commission Alleges, Disclose, Enjoins Murphy, Future Fraud, California, Selling, Complaint, Sold, Offering, Davis, Entry, Federal Securities Laws, American Capital Investments, Permanent, Act, Receivership , ContentID: 120242642

Case Documents
1 1997-07-24 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 105736
4 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 4 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC LITIGATION RELEASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INVESTMENTS
SECURITIES
COMMISSION
INJUNCTION
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
VIOLATIONS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
ATM
FREEZE
ASSETS
COURT
CIVIL
COMMISSION ALLEGES
DISCLOSE
ENJOINS MURPHY
FUTURE FRAUD
CALIFORNIA
SELLING
BUSINESS
COMPLAINT
SOLD
OFFERING
DAVIS
ENTRY
FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
AMERICAN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
PERMANENT
ACT
RECEIVERSHIP





                       U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

     LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15418 / July 24, 1997

     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. STEPHEN J. MURPHY
     Civil Action No. CV 97-2719 JMI (CWx) (C.D. Cal.)

          The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced
that
     on July 15, 1997, the Honorable James M. Ideman, United States
District
     Judge, entered a permanent injunction ("Injunction") against a repeat
     securities violator from Playa del Rey, California, Stephen J. Murphy
     ("Murphy"), for his role in a scheme involving selling investments in
a
     business that was to own and operate automated teller machines
("ATMs").

          In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that since at least
June
     1996, Murphy offered and sold limited partnership interests through a
Los
     Angeles company doing business as ATM Global, Inc. ("ATM Global").
The
     limited partnership was to raise $2.8 million from investors and then
     acquire, own and operate ATMs nationwide.  ATMs generate revenue
through
     transaction fees charged to customers who use them.  The written
offering
     materials that Murphy approved state that the projected return to
investors
     would be over 176% in the first year and 203% annually in the second
     through seventh years.  Murphy designed the limited partnership program
and
     led the promotional and sales efforts.  To date, Murphy himself has
raised
     at least $377,500 from investors located in Southern California,
South
     Carolina and Virginia.

          The Commission alleges that, in offering and selling the limited
     partnership interests to investors, Murphy misrepresented his identity
by
SNIPPETS:
  • U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. STEPHEN J. MURPHY
  • Civil Action No. CV 97-2719 JMI (C.D.
  • Judge, entered a permanent injunction against a repeat securities violator from Playa del
  • the Commission alleges that since at least June
  • Angeles company doing business as ATM Global,
  • The limited partnership was to raise $2.8 million from investors and then acquire,
  • The written offering materials that Murphy approved state that the projected return to
  • To date, Murphy himself has raised at least $377,500 from investors located in Southern
  • The Commission alleges that, in offering and selling the limited partnership interests to
  • Furthermore, as set forth in the Commission's Complaint, Murphy failed to disclose the entry
  • SEC v. American Capital Investments, et al., Civil Case No. CV-93-5280 CBM (C.D.
  • the Commission alleged that Murphy fraudulently offered and sold investments in real estate
  • Murphy further failed to disclose that another company he owned and managed, American Capital
  • The Injunction permanently enjoins Murphy from future fraud violations of the federal
  • Specifically, the Injunction enjoins Murphy from future violations of Section 17of the
  • The Injunction additionally orders that Murphy shall pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest
  • On April 21, 1997, the Commission obtained a temporary restraining order against Murphy to
  •    |