LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v BETTY ANN RUBIN et al Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-15088, CourtCode: DIS, CourtName: STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, CIVIL ACTION, Defendant: Betty Ann Rubin et al., Plaintiff: SEC, State: MD Maryland, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-15088, Tvi, Molovinsky, Commission, Securities, Complaint, Investor, Exchange Commission, District, Tvi Stock, Sold, Shares, Securities Act, United States, Maryland, Alleges, Sales, Creditors, Misleading Statements, Revenues, Civil, Contractor, Control, Proceeds, Plan, Reorganization, Bankruptcy Code, Exempting, Demand, According , ContentID: 120242970

Case Documents
1 1996-09-27 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 106064
2 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC LITIGATION RELEASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MOLOVINSKY
COMMISSION
SECURITIES
COMPLAINT
INVESTOR
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
DISTRICT
TVI STOCK
SOLD
SHARES
SECURITIES ACT
UNITED STATES
MARYLAND
ALLEGES
SALES
CREDITORS
MISLEADING STATEMENTS
REVENUES
COURT
CIVIL
CONTRACTOR
CONTROL
PROCEEDS
PLAN
REORGANIZATION
BANKRUPTCY CODE
EXEMPTING
DEMAND
ACCORDING





         UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15088 / September 27, 1996

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. BRENT MOLOVINSKY, (United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, Civil Action
No. PJM-963046)

     On September 27, 1996, the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("Commission") filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland against Brent Molovinsky
("Molovinsky"), the former president and chairman of the board of
TVI Corporation ("TVI"), a publicly held military defense
contractor headquartered in Beltsville, Maryland, seeking a
permanent injunction, disgorgement and prejudgment interest,
civil penalties and an order barring Molovinsky from acting as an
officer or director of any public company.  The Commission
alleges that, between October 1992 and April 1995, Molovinsky,
who had exclusive control over TVI's day-to-day operations and
finances, engaged in a scheme in which he misappropriated more
than $1 million of investor proceeds raised from the sale of over
$2.9 million of TVI stock to at least 699 investors.  The stock
was to be offered and sold to existing TVI investors and
creditors pursuant to a court-approved plan of reorganization,
and was to be subject to a provision in the United States
Bankruptcy Code exempting such sales from registration.

     In its complaint, the Commission charges that Molovinsky
fraudulently stimulated demand for TVI stock by making materially
false and misleading statements concerning the company's
revenues, earnings and assets.  Molovinsky disseminated the
misleading information through investor correspondence and a
series of TVI press releases which he prepared and issued.  Among
other things, he overstated TVI's revenues and income during 1992
and 1993, falsely represented that TVI had contracts to build
tank gunnery ranges that would generate revenues exceeding $2.5
million, and falsely stated that TVI held patents for low-cost
stealth material and thermal targets used in military
applications.

     According to the complaint, Molovinsky took advantage of the
increased demand generated by his false and misleading statements
by selling almost all of the 14 million shares of TVI stock
SNIPPETS:
  • UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. BRENT MOLOVINSKY, (United States District Court for the
  • On September 27, 1996, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the U.S.
  • , the former president and chairman of the board of TVI Corporation, a publicly held military
  • The Commission alleges that, between October 1992 and April 1995, Molovinsky, who had
  • The stock was to be offered and sold to existing TVI investors and creditors pursuant to a
  • In its complaint, the Commission charges that Molovinsky fraudulently stimulated demand for
  • According to the complaint, Molovinsky took advantage of the increased demand generated by
  • Based on the foregoing, the complaint alleges that Molovinsky violated Sections 5, 5and 17of
  •    |