 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
TREPP SECURITIES DISMISSING VIOLATE COMMISSION CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER EXCHANGE APPEALS MATTER HEAD HIGH-YIELD BOND HIGH-YIELD BOND TRADER DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT REMEDY COMMISSION VACATE FINDINGS HOLDING AGE SECURITIES INDUSTRY PETITIONS REVIEW FACTS REMEDIAL PURPOSE ISSUING INTIMATE MERITS DENYING REQUEST PROPER HEREBY |
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Rel. No. 41913 / September 24, 1999
Admin. Proc. File No. 3-8833
_________________________
In the Matter of ORDER
DISMISSING
WARREN G. TREPP PROCEEDINGS
_________________________
The Division of Enforcement ("Division") appeals from the decision of
an administrative law judge dismissing proceedings against Warren G.
Trepp, the former head high-yield bond trader at Drexel Burnham
Lambert, Inc. ("Drexel"). Although the law judge found that Trepp
violated the law, she dismissed this matter because she concluded that
the only remedy available to the Commission, a cease-and-desist order,
could not be imposed because the Division had not shown that Trepp was
reasonably likely to violate the securities laws in the future. Trepp
has also appealed, asking that the Commission vacate the findings of
violation made by the law judge and dismiss this matter.
The law judge, in large part, based her holding that Trepp was not
reasonably likely to violate the securities laws in the future on the
age of this case. The conduct at issue is alleged by the Division to
have occurred in 1986, and this case was not instituted until nine
years later, in September 1995. The law judge noted that Trepp had not
violated the law since 1986, and indeed had not even been in the
securities industry since 1992.
We have granted the Division's and Trepp's petitions for review, and
have determined that, given these facts, no remedial purpose will be
served by issuing a cease-and-desist order against Trepp. We intimate
no view on the merits, nor do we address whether the standard employed
by the law judge in denying the Division's request for a
cease-and-desist order was the proper one.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this proceeding be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
By the Commission.
Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
