LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v LASER TECHNOLOGY, INC Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 34-42549, Defendant: Laser Technology, Inc., Plaintiff: SEC, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-42549, Laser Tech, Exchange Act, Account, Williams, Commission, Transactions, Australian Distributor, Sevy, Dunne, Pursuant, Violations, Securities, Instituting, Findings, Thereunder, Shipments, Report, Officers, Directors, Loans, Independent Accountants, Deworth Williams, Committed Violations, Making Findings, Imposing, Cease-and-desist Order, Related Party Transactions, Recognition, Revenue, Resales , ContentID: 120244310

Case Documents
1 2000-03-20 SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 111044
3 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 3 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EXCHANGE ACT
ACCOUNT
WILLIAMS
COMMISSION
TRANSACTIONS
AUSTRALIAN DISTRIBUTOR
SEVY
DUNNE
PURSUANT
VIOLATIONS
SECURITIES
INSTITUTING
FINDINGS
THEREUNDER
SHIPMENTS
REPORT
OFFICERS
DIRECTORS
LOANS
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
DEWORTH WILLIAMS
COMMITTED VIOLATIONS
MAKING FINDINGS
IMPOSING
CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
RECOGNITION
REVENUE
RESALES
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

   SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   Release No. 42549 / March 20, 2000

   ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT
   Release No. 1237 / March 20, 2000

   ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
   File No. 3-10163

   ____________________
                        ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC
   In the Matter of     PROCEEDINGS, MAKING FINDINGS,
   Jeremy G. Dunne,     AND IMPOSING A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER

   Respondent.
   ____________________

   I.

   The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it
   appropriate that public cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby
   are, instituted pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act
   of 1934 ("Exchange Act") to determine whether Laser Technology, Inc.
   ("Laser Tech" or "respondent") violated Sections 10(b), 13(a),
   13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, Rules 10b-5, 13a-1,
   13a-13, and 13b2-1 thereunder, and Exchange Act Rule 12b-20.

   II.

   In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Laser Tech
   has submitted an Offer of Settlement ("Offer"), which the Commission
   has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings
   and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission or
   in which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying
   the findings contained herein, except that Laser Tech admits the
   jurisdiction of the Commission over it and over the subject matter of
   these proceedings, Laser Tech consents to the issuance of this Order
   Instituting Public Proceedings, Making Findings, and Imposing a
   Cease-And-Desist Order ("Order") and to the entry of findings and the
   imposition of the relief set forth below.

   III.

   On the basis of this Order and respondent's Offer, the Commission
SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission deems it appropriate that public cease-and-desist
  • In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Laser Tech has submitted an Offer of
  • Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf f findings and the imposition of the relief set forth below.
  • Laser Tech is a Delaware corporation based in Englewood, Colorado, whose stock is registered
  • Laser Tech booked those shipments as sales and recognized the revenue in its financial
  • In September and October 1994 and again in September 1995, at a time when they were officers
  • Those funds were then transmitted to Laser Tech's Australian distributor, who used them to
  • Williams knew about these transactions, and Laser Tech's Chief Financial Officer, Pamela J.
  • These transactions were in effect loans from the officers/directors to Laser Tech, but Laser
  • Laser Tech did not disclose the transactions as related party transactions pursuant to Item
  • Laser Tech did not maintain a record of these products in its official inventory or account
  • in May 1995 Williams and Sevy opened a bank account under Laser Tech's name to facilitate
  • Williams and Sevy did not notify Laser Tech's board of directors or seek or obtain their
  • In approximately September 1997, Williams borrowed $165,000 from his brother H. DeWorth
  • F. The loans and transactions through the undisclosed bank account, as described above, were
  • Williams and Sevy are no longer employees, officers, or directors of Laser Tech.
  • Laser Tech thus committed violations of Sections 10and 13of the Exchange Act, Rules 10b-5,
  •    |