LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v TERRY T. STEEN Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 34-40055, Defendant: Terry T. Steen, Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-40055, Securities, Securities Act, Pay Disgorgement, Violations, Appeals, Sales, Respondent, Proceeding, Securities Exchange, Sold, Stat-tech, Commission, Unregistered Securities, Ability, Stat-tech Stock, Law Judge, Registered Securities Association, Dtech, Stat-tech Affiliates, Rms, Transactions, Registered Broker-dealer, National Securities Exchange, Committing, Enforcement, Restricted Securities, Financial Statement, Compliance, Financial Information , ContentID: 120247229

Case Documents
1 1998-06-02 SEC COMMISSION OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 117379
20 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 20 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC COMMISSION OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SECURITIES ACT
LAW
PAY DISGORGEMENT
VIOLATIONS
APPEALS
SALES
RESPONDENT
PROCEEDING
SECURITIES EXCHANGE
SOLD
STAT-TECH
COMMISSION
UNREGISTERED SECURITIES
ABILITY
STAT-TECH STOCK
LAW JUDGE
REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION
DTECH
STAT-TECH AFFILIATES
RMS
TRANSACTIONS
REGISTERED BROKER-DEALER
NATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE
COMMITTING
ENFORCEMENT
RESTRICTED SECURITIES
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
COMPLIANCE
FINANCIAL INFORMATION




                          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                   Washington, D.C.

     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
     Rel. No. 40055 / JUNE 2, 1998

     Admin. Proc. File No. 3-8798

                                             :
               In the Matter of              :
                                             :
               TERRY T. STEEN                :
                                             :


     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

          BROKER-DEALER PROCEEDING

               Ground for Remedial Action

                    Sale of Unregistered Securities

          Registered representative of a registered broker-dealer sold
          unregistered securities in violation of the securities laws. Held,
it
          is in the public interest to suspend representative from
associating
          with a broker or dealer or member of a national securities
exchange or
          a registered securities association for six months and to order
          respondent to cease and desist from committing or causing any
          violation of Section 5(a) or Section 5(c) of the Securities Act
of
          1933.  The proceeding is remanded for further consideration of
          respondent's ability to pay disgorgement.

     APPEARANCES:

          Daniel F. Wake, of Krendl Horowitz & Krendl, for Terry T. Steen.

          Thomas D. Carter and Polly Atkinson, for the Division of
Enforcement.

SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  • Registered representative of a registered broker-dealer sold unregistered securities in
  • The proceeding is remanded for further consideration of respondent's ability to pay
  • appeals from a decision of an administrative law judge.
  • of the Securities Act of 1933 by selling shares of unregistered common stock in Stat-Tech
  • The law judge suspended Steen from association with any broker, dealer, or member of a
  • Steen does not dispute that he sold Stat-Tech securities without a registration statement
  • RMS hired Steen as an independent contractor and permitted Steen to maintain a personal
  • Steen's contract with RMS apportioned 80% of the proceeds from profitable transactions to
  • Rule 144defines "restricted securities" to include securities acquired from the issuer or an
  • notice of a proposed sale must be given if sales during a three-month period exceed
  • From July 1989 to July 1990, in over 14 separate transactions, Steen sold 4.8 million shares
  • he had the company's public filings that made clear that Stat-Tech affiliates controlled over
  • / Steen possessed RMS' compliance manual,
  • Fenster referred DTech to Steen, and DTech's new account form listed Stat-Tech as the source
  • the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the
  • Steen contends that he should not be required to disgorge the amount plus interest ordered by
  • Steen notes that he was discharged in bankruptcy proceedings in 1995 and contends that the
  • The burden of proving financial inability to pay disgorgement falls upon the respondent.
  • He did not, however, introduce during that hearing any of the financial documents that he now
  • Our Division of Enforcement argues that Steen's failure to introduce financial statements
  • Steen notes that he was not required to file any financial statement before the law judge.
  •    |