LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v P. SANDERS and DANIEL M. PORUSH Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 34-40600, Defendant: P. Sanders and Daniel M. Porush, Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-40600, Nasd, Firm, Porush, Markups, Securities, Supervisory, Responsibility, Sanders, Dealers, President, Stratton, Commission, Warrants, Prices, Sanctions, Securities Exchange Act, Violations, Glazier Units, Disciplinary Action, National Association, Compliance, Applicants, District Committee, Retail Customers, Fraudulent Markups, Transactions, Common Stock, Contemporaneous Cost, Head Trader , ContentID: 120247216

Case Documents
1 1998-10-26 SEC COMMISSION OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 117366
24 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 24 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC COMMISSION OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
FIRM
PORUSH
MARKUPS
SECURITIES
SUPERVISORY
RESPONSIBILITY
SANDERS
DEALERS
PRESIDENT
STRATTON
COMMISSION
WARRANTS
PRICES
SANCTIONS
MEMBERS
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
VIOLATIONS
GLAZIER UNITS
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
COMPLIANCE
APPLICANTS
DISTRICT COMMITTEE
RETAIL CUSTOMERS
FRAUDULENT MARKUPS
TRANSACTIONS
COMMON STOCK
CONTEMPORANEOUS COST
HEAD TRADER
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                   Washington, D.C.

          SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
          Rel. No. 40600 / October 26,1998

          Admin. Proc. File No. 3-9195
          _________________________________________________
                                                           :
                 In the Matter of the Applications of      :
                                                           :
                         STEVEN P. SANDERS                 :
                         13-28 208th Place                 :
                      Bayside, New York 11360              :
                                                           :
                                and                        :
                                                           :
                          DANIEL M. PORUSH                 :
                         Two Bayclub Drive                 :
                      Bayside, New York 11360              :
                                                           :
           For Review of Disciplinary Action Taken by the  :
                                                           :
          NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC. :
                                                           :

          OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

               REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION -- REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY
               PROCEEDINGS

                    Violations of Rules of Fair Practice

                         Excessive and Fraudulent Markups

                         Failure to Supervise

               Head trader of member firm of registered securities
               association was responsible for excessive and fraudulent
               markups, and firm's president failed to comply with
               supervisory requirements.  Held, association's findings of
               violation and sanctions it imposed sustained.

          APPEARANCES:

               Andrew M. Zeitlin and Martin P. Unger, of Tenzer Greenblatt
          LLP, for Steven Sanders.

               Charles A. Stillman and Michael J. Grudberg, of Stillman &
SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • For Review of Disciplinary Action Taken by the:
  • Excessive and Fraudulent Markups
  • Head trader of member firm of registered securities
  • Andrew M. Zeitlin and Martin P. Unger, of Tenzer Greenblatt LLP, for Steven Sanders.
  • Alden S. Adkins and Norman Sue, Jr., for NASD Regulation, Inc.
  • Steven P. Sanders, the former manager of the trading department at Stratton Oakmont, Inc.,
  • The NASD found that Stratton, acting through Sanders, charged excessive and fraudulent
  • Each unit consisted of one share of common stock, one Class A warrant, and one Class B
  • The warrants were exercisable one year after the offering date and entitled the holder,
  • Stratton sold 1,623,500 of the Glazier units, 78% of the total number of units issued, to the
  • Porush, who shared responsibility for allocating the Glazier IPO to Stratton's sales
  • Additional units were flipped shortly after trading in the aftermarket began at prices of
  • In addition to obtaining units from its retail customers, the Firm, during the first five
  • Sanders, as Stratton's head trader, was responsible for executing these trades.
  • Stratton bought or sold 4,829,650 Class B warrants in wholesale and retail transactions,
  • Based on these factors, we conclude that Stratton controlled the Glazier market and that,
  • Although several other dealers identified themselves as market makers in Glazier warrants,
  • 3of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
  • This report was submitted as part of applicants' appeal of the decision of the NASD's
  • We now turn to the question of whether Porush should be held liable for supervisory failings
  • Its compliance manual contained a section titled "Fair Prices" which briefly summarized some
  • Respondents complain that the sanctions are excessive.
  •    |