 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC COMMISSION OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SECURITIES BANK EXCHANGE ACT PRIME BANK VIOLATIONS COMMISSION PROCEEDING MARTIN INJUNCTION HANCOCK REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION APPEALS INVESTMENT LAW JUDGE REPRESENTATIONS BROKER-DEALER NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE SLCS PBGS KAIDEN COMPANY TRANSACTION UNITED STATES EXISTENCE PRESIDENT ENFORCEMENT CORPORATE PAY ORDER KAIDEN ASSERTS TESTIMONY BAR RESPONDENT |
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Rel. No. 41629 / July 20, 1999
Admin. Proc. File No. 3-9403
_________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of the
Martin R. Kaiden
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
BROKER-DEALER PROCEEDING
Grounds for Remedial Action
Fraudulent Offer of Prime Bank Instruments Injunction
President of a registered broker-dealer offered fictitious prime bank
instruments to potential customer in communications that made
statements about the instruments without any basis. President also was
enjoined from violations arising from these offers of these
instruments. Held, it is in the public interest to bar respondent from
association with a broker, dealer, or a member of a national
securities exchange or of a registered securities association.
APPEARANCES
Martin R. Kaiden, pro se.
Kevin T. Duffy, Jr., Andrew J. Geist, Robert Knuts, George N.
Stepaniuk, and Abimbola Kolawole, for the Division of Enforcement.
Appeal filed April 14, 1998
Last brief received July 1, 1998
I.
Martin R. Kaiden and the Division of Enforcement appeal from a
decision of an administrative law judge. The law judge found that
Kaiden, who, during the period at issue, was the president and sole
shareholder of Martin Kaiden Company, Inc. ("Kaiden Company"), a
former broker-dealer, violated Section 17(a) of theSecurities Act of
1933 * by offering fictitious prime bank instruments to a potential
customer and that Kaiden had consented to entry of an injunction
prohibiting further violations of certain provisions of the securities
laws arising from this same conduct. The law judge determined that
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
