SEC v MILTON PURYEAR; BRENDA P. MURRAY, et al


\|

Keywords & Phrases

CaseNo: 95, Defendant: Milton Puryear; Brenda P. Murray, Chief Administrative Law Judge File No. 3-8766, Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>95, Puryear, Investment Adviser, Securities, Act, Commission, Milton Puryear, Judge, Exchange, Pursuant, Div, Money, Administrative Law Judge, Exhibits, Report, Evidence, Investors, Proceeding, Respondent Puryear, Puryear Realty, Washington, Real Estate, Registered Investment Adviser, Unregistered Securities, Judge Martin, Enforcement, Joseph Fleming, Injunctions, Businesses, Investment Advice , ContentID: 120245687

Case Documents

1996-08-12

SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 112426

10 pages
HTML

Total Documents: 1 document , 10 pages

Price: $ 19.95

IVESLCD01 KGI0001

1 . SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

INVESTMENT ADVISER
SECURITIES
ACT
COMMISSION
MILTON PURYEAR
JUDGE
EXCHANGE
PURSUANT
DIV
MONEY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
EXHIBITS
REPORT
EVIDENCE
INVESTORS
PROCEEDING
RESPONDENT PURYEAR
PURYEAR REALTY
DEFENDANT
WASHINGTON
REAL ESTATE
REGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISER
UNREGISTERED SECURITIES
JUDGE MARTIN
ENFORCEMENT
JOSEPH FLEMING
INJUNCTIONS
BUSINESSES
INVESTMENT ADVICE

Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge

Milton Puryear

INITIAL DECISION RELEASE NO. 95

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
FILE NO. 3-8766

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                 Before the
                     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
     _________________________________________________________________

   In the Matter of

   MILTON PURYEAR

     _________________________________________________________________

   INITIAL DECISION

   August 12, 1996

   APPEARANCES

   Sheilah M. Reycraft, Petra T. Tasheff, and Bruce H. Newman for the
   Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission

   Joseph Fleming for the Respondent

   BEFORE

   Brenda P. Murray, Chief Administrative Law Judge

   The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") instituted this
   proceeding on August 1, 1995, pursuant to Sections 203(e) and 203(f)
   of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"). As directed
   by the Commission's Order Instituting Public Proceedings ("Order"), I
   held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on September 13, 1995. The
   Division of Enforcement ("Division") did not call any witnesses, but
   offered 29 exhibits which I received in evidence. Respondent Puryear
   testified and offered one exhibit which I admitted.

   I received the Division's Post-Hearing Brief and Proposed Findings of
   Fact and Conclusions of Law on October 30, 1995. Respondent Puryear
   did not make any post-hearing filings.

SNIPPETS:

Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge

Milton Puryear

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING FILE NO. 3-8766

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Joseph Fleming for the Respondent

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding on August 1, 1995, pursuant

The Division of Enforcement did not call any witnesses, but offered 29 exhibits which I

Respondent Puryear testified and offered one exhibit which I admitted.

The Order alleges that From approximately November 1989 through approximately October 1992,

In the same time frame, Mr. Puryear willfully violated Section 17of the Securities Act, enefit, and funds would be placed in escrow and returned to investors if the offering was not fully

Judge Martin made oral findings on March 30, 1994, that Mr. Puryear willfully engaged in the