 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC COMMISSION OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
VACATE SECURITIES MARK EXCHANGE ACT BROKER-DEALER INVESTMENT COMMISSION CONSENT INVESTMENT COMPANY HEREBY MOTION BARRING STOCK IMPOSES INSURANCE SECURITIES INDUSTRY CONTENDS ORDER HINDERS DEALINGS PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS EXISTENCE ROSS REQUESTS HARDSHIPS PROFESSIONAL MOBILITY PROTECT INVESTORS DIVISION NOTES MISCONDUCT DEEM PRIOR ORDER |
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Rel. No.43033 / July 13, 2000
Admin. Proc. File No. 3-4627
_________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of
MARK E. ROSS
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
VACATE COMMISSION ORDER
Mark E. Ross seeks to vacate the order entered against him by consent
on March 10, 1975, barring him from association with any
broker-dealer, investment company, or investment adviser (the
"Order"). The Division of Enforcement supports Ross' motion to vacate
the Order.
In the Order, we found that Ross had violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934^ and Rule 10b-5^ thereunder by
dominating, controlling, and manipulating the market in the stock of
Elinvest, Inc. and by creating a false and misleading appearance of a
widespread and independent interest in that stock.
In arguing that our Order should be vacated, Ross points out that the
Order was entered twenty-five years ago when he was only nineteen
years of age. Since that time, we have relaxed certainrestrictions
imposed on Ross by the Order. For example, in January 1987, we
consented to Ross's association with The Equitable Life Assurance
Society as a registered representative for the limited purpose of
selling investment company and variable contract insurance products.
In November 1987, we consented to Ross' association with First Equity
Corporation as a general securities principal. Ross is now a general
securities principal and major shareholder for Mark Ross & Co., a
broker-dealer. Ross emphasizes that, since the issuance of the Order,
he has participated in various segments of the securities industry and
has not been the subject of any regulatory proceeding or sanction.
Ross contends that the Order imposes burdensome requirements that are
no longer needed to regulate his conduct. Ross further contends that
the Order hinders his dealings with prospective clients who are
understandably troubled by the existence of the bar. Ross requests
that we vacate the Order to eliminate these hardships and to allow him
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
