LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v OSCAR WILLIAM OLSON, JR Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-14736, CourtName: JOHN D. LAUER, ET AL., SEEKING COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS, Defendant: Oscar William Olson, Jr., Plaintiff: SEC, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-14736, Commission, Olson, Deposition, Investors, Copol, Lauer, Konex, Securities, Polichemi, Contempt Actions, Exchange Commission, John, Requiring, London, Possession, Konex Holding, Lyle, Joseph Polichemi, Civil, Compliance, Subpoena, Briefing, Responsive Documents, Custody, Control, Costs, Delay , ContentID: 120243315

Case Documents
1 1995-11-27 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 106409
2 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC LITIGATION RELEASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
OLSON
COURT
DEPOSITION
INVESTORS
COPOL
LAUER
KONEX
SECURITIES
POLICHEMI
CONTEMPT ACTIONS
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
JOHN
DEFENDANTS
REQUIRING
LONDON
POSSESSION
KONEX HOLDING
LYLE
JOSEPH POLICHEMI
CIVIL
COMPLIANCE
SUBPOENA
BRIEFING
RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS
CUSTODY
CONTROL
ATTORNEYS
COSTS
DELAY

-------------------- BEGINNING OF PAGE #1 -------------------

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 14736 / November 27, 1995

SEC v. John D. Lauer, Clifton Capital Investors L.P., Konex
Holding Corp., Lyle E. Neal, Copol Investments Limited and Joseph
Polichemi, USDC N.D.Ill., 94 C 3770, filed June 21, 1994.

     The U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission)
announced today the filing of two civil contempt actions against
Oscar William Olson, Jr. (Olson), the general counsel of Copol
Investments Limited (Copol), a defendant in the action SEC v.
John D. Lauer, et al., seeking compliance with Court orders
requiring him to produce documents and appear for a deposition.

     The Commission filed the first of its contempt actions
against Olson on June 5, 1995.  In this action, the Commission
alleged that Olson failed to comply with a Court-ordered subpoena
requiring him to appear for his deposition in London on June 2,
1995 and to produce documents to the Commission before such
deposition.  After briefing and oral argument, on June 9, 1995,
the Court compelled Olson to produce to the Commission by July 5,
1995 all responsive documents within his custody, possession or
control in the United Kingdom and to produce all other responsive
documents within his custody, possession or control by August 22,
1995.  In addition, the Court ordered Olson to appear for his
deposition at the U.S. Embassy in London, England on July 11,
1995.

     On July 10, 1995, after denying Olson's motion to cancel or
continue the deposition and after noting that Commission
attorneys were already in London ready to proceed, the Court
again ordered Olson to appear for his deposition on July 11,
1995.  Nonetheless, Olson failed to appear for his deposition on
the date ordered but instead appeared two days later.  In
addition, Olson failed to produce any documents to the Commission
pursuant to the subpoena or Court orders.

     As a result, on August 4, 1995, the Commission filed a
second contempt action against Olson.  In this action, the
Commission alleged that Olson refused to comply with the Court's
June 9 and July 10, 1995 orders.  The Commission requested the
Court to find Olson in contempt, and sought attorneys fees and
costs against him for his delay in beginning the deposition.
Finally, the Commission requested the Court to assess a $1,000.
SNIPPETS:
  • SEC v. John D. Lauer, Clifton Capital Investors L.P., Konex Holding Corp., Lyle E. Neal,
  • The U.S Securities and Exchange Commission announced today the filing of two civil contempt
  • In this action, the Commission alleged that Olson failed to comply with a Court-ordered
  • After briefing and oral argument, on June 9, 1995, the Court compelled Olson to produce to
  • On July 10, 1995, after denying Olson's motion to cancel or continue the deposition and after
  • The Commission requested the Court to find Olson in contempt, and sought attorneys fees and
  • daily fine against Olson to enforce compliance with document production provisions of the
  • After exhaustive briefing and multiple Court hearings, on November 9, 1995, the Court ordered
  • On June 21st, the Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order against the defendants, froze
  • Discovery continues in the action to determine the appropriate amount of disgorgement and
  •    |