SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 42109 / November 5, 1999
ACCOUNTING AUDITING ENFORCEMENT
Release No. 1201 / November 5, 1999
Admin. Proc. File No. 3-9952
In the Matter of
JETHRO J. BARLOW, CPA,
ALAN K. BURTON,
J. EDWARDS COX,
ROBERT G. WEEKS,
DAVID A. HESTERMAN, and
KENNETH L. WEEKS
Order Granting Motion To Amend Order Instituting Proceedings
On October 15, 1999, the Division of Enforcement moved, pursuant to
Rule 200(d)(1), to amend the Order Instituting Proceedings in this
matter. The Division contends that several inadvertent omissions were
made in the relief requested against respondents Barlow, Burton, and
Cox. The omitted requests for relief concern various reporting and
recordkeeping violations that the respondents are alleged to have
committed.
Specifically, the Division notes that Barlow, Burton and Cox were
charged with violations of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act
of 1934 and Exchange Act Rules 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13, and that
Barlow and Cox also were charged with violations of Exchange Act Rule
13a-10. The Division points out, however, that the relief requested in
the order fails to include that (1) Barlow cease and desist from all
violations of Exchange Act Rule 13a-10; (2) Burton cease and desist
from all violations of Exchange Act Rules 13a-1, and 13a-11; and (3)
Cox cease and desist from all violations of Exchange Act Rules 13a-1,
13a-11, and 13a-13. The Division requests, therefore, that the
Commission amend the order to include requests for relief consistent
with the alleged violations.
We have stated that amendment of orders instituting proceedings should
be freely granted, subject only to the consideration that other
parties not be surprised nor their rights prejudiced. Respondents will
suffer no surprise or prejudice by allowing the amendment to the order
SNIPPETS:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
On October 15, 1999, the Division of Enforcement moved, pursuant to Rule 200, to amend the
The Division contends that several inadvertent omissions were made in the relief requested
The omitted requests for relief concern various reporting and recordkeeping violations that
Specifically, the Division notes that Barlow, Burton and Cox were charged with violations of
The Division points out, however, that the relief requested in the order fails to include
The Division requests, therefore, that the Commission amend the order to include requests for
We have stated that amendment of orders instituting proceedings should be freely granted,
Respondents will suffer no surprise or prejudice by allowing the amendment to the order
The requested amendment is within the scope of the original order and seeks merely to conform
Moreover, the procedural posture of the case - the hearing of this matter is not scheduled to
Accordingly, it is ordered that the Division of Enforcement's Motion to Amend the Order for
The administrative law judge denied, without prejudice, the Division's motion to amend the
|
