 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
KERNS SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT ANDERSON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING EXCHANGE COMMISSION JUDGE PONZI-LIKE SCHEME INSTITUTING JERRY ROBERT DISTRICT SNYDER INVESTORS ALLEGATIONS CALIFORNIA FUTURE VIOLATIONS ANTIFRAUD PROVISIONS THEREUNDER FRAUDULENT SCHEME GAS JOINT VENTURES LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS INVESTORS NATIONWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE EVIDENCE AFFORD ANDERSON DEFENSE PURPOSE REMEDIAL ACTION PROTECTION |
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
RELEASE NO. 41911 / September 24, 1999
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-10027
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING INSTITUTED AGAINST JERRY W. ANDERSON AND
ROBERT M. KERNS
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced that
it issued an Order Instituting Public Administrative Proceeding
Pursuant To Sections 15(b) And 19(h) Of The Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Order") against Jerry W. Anderson ("Anderson") and Robert M.
Kerns ("Kerns"), the co-owners of the parent company of a Commission
registered broker-dealer, Amerivest Financial Group, Inc., of which
Kerns was president.
The Commission's Order alleges that Anderson and Kerns were enjoined
by United States District Judge Christina A. Snyder of the Central
District of California on April 2, 1999 from future violations of the
antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. Judge Snyder found that Anderson and Kerns had
engaged in a fraudulent scheme from 1992 until September 1997 in which
they operated a Ponzi-like scheme involving oil and gas joint ventures
and limited partnerships. This Ponzi-like scheme raised over $16
million from over 500 investors nationwide, many of whom were elderly.
A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to
consider evidence regarding the above allegations and to afford
Anderson and Kerns an opportunity to present any defense. The purpose
of the hearing is to determine whether the allegations are true and
whether any remedial action is appropriate in the public interest and
for the protection of investors.
_________________________________________________________________
Modified 09/24/1999
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
