LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v EAGLE SUPPLY GROUP, INC Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 34-39800, Defendant: Eagle Supply Group, Inc., Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-39800, Friedman, Securities, Nasd, Review, Tda, Violations, Nasdaq, Commission, Securities Law, Market, Review Committee, Listing, Qualifications Panel, Exchange Act, Misconduct, Connection, Basis, Civil, Stock, Directors, Acquisitions, Control, Remand, Nasdaq Smallcap Market, Public Offering, Accordance, Inclusion, Histories, Concur, Kick-back , ContentID: 120247236

Case Documents
1 1998-03-25 SEC COMMISSION OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 117386
9 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 9 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC COMMISSION OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SECURITIES
NASD
REVIEW
TDA
VIOLATIONS
NASDAQ
COMMISSION
SECURITIES LAW
MARKET
REVIEW COMMITTEE
LISTING
QUALIFICATIONS PANEL
EXCHANGE ACT
MISCONDUCT
CONNECTION
BASIS
CIVIL
STOCK
DIRECTORS
ACQUISITIONS
CONTROL
REMAND
NASDAQ SMALLCAP MARKET
PUBLIC OFFERING
ACCORDANCE
INCLUSION
HISTORIES
CONCUR
KICK-BACK


                          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                   Washington, D.C.

          SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
          Rel. No. 39800 / March 25, 1998

          Admin. Proc. File No. 3-9313
          -----------------------------------------------------------------


                                                  :
          In the Matter of the Application of     :
                                                  :
              EAGLE SUPPLY GROUP, INC.            :
              122 East 42nd Street                :
              Suite 1116                          :
              New York, New York 10168            :
                                                  :
          For Review of Action Taken by the       :
                                                  :
  NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.:


          OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION -- DENIAL OF NASDAQSMALLCAP MARKET
LISTING

          Control Persons' Prior Civil and Criminal Actions

Registered securities association, in denying an issuer's request that its
securities be included in the association's automatic quotation system,
failed to explain why twenty-five- and twenty-seven-year-old securities law
violations by two control persons indicate a risk of future misconduct.
Held, remanded for a more definitive and complete statement of the
reasoning for its decision.

          APPEARANCES:

          Richard H. Rowe, of Proskauer Rose LLP, for Eagle Supply Group,
          Inc.

          Robert E. Aber, Sara Nelson Bloom, and Arnold P. Golub, for the
          Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.

          Appeal filed:May 22, 1997
SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION -- DENIAL OF NASDAQSMALLCAP MARKET LISTING
  • Registered securities association, in denying an issuer's request that its securities be
  • Eagle Supply Group, Inc. has applied for review of a decision of the National Association of
  • The NASD identified as the basis for denial the fact that two of Eagle's control persons were
  • The NASD found that these prior violations created a risk of future misconduct and that
  • Since the early 1970s, Fields and Friedman have held the same positions with TDA Industries,
  • Fields and Friedman engaged in "illicit schemes and misrepresentations designed to
  • In addition, in 1971 and 1973, Fields and Friedman were involved in the payment of sham
  • A prospectus relating to a public offering of TDA stock in November 1971 and proxy materials
  • Following their convictions and the expiration of the two-year prohibition on their acting as
  • the Company applied to the NASD for inclusion of its securities in the Nasdaq SmallCap Market.
  • The Qualifications Panel, however, also denied the Company's request for listing on the
  • The Qualifications Panel was particularly concerned by its belief that Fields and Friedman
  • During the review process the Company notified the Review Committee that the Qualifications
  • The Review Committee affirmed the Qualifications Panel's decision to deny listing based on
  • The Review Committee did not explain how, or even whether, it factored into its decision to
  • In order to sustain NASD action of this nature, we must find that such action is in
  • we are directing the NASD on remand to provide a sufficient basis for its decision to enable
  • :/Section 19of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
  •    |