LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v D.E. WINE INVESTMENTS, INC., W. RANDAL MILLER, et al Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 34-39517, Defendant: D.E. Wine Investments, Inc., W. Randal Miller, Kenneth B. Karpf, Duncan E. Wine, Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-39517, Securities, Markups, Markdowns, Firm, Exchange Act, Prevailing Market Price, Interdealer Trades, Wine, Miller, Retail Trade, Opinion, Findings, Karpf, Dew, Commission, Market Maker, Law Judge, Violations, Fraudulent Markups, Wine Investments, Registered Broker-dealer, Respondents, Proceeding, Administrative Law, Transaction, Quotations, Registered Principals, Randal Miller, Enforcement , ContentID: 120247246

Case Documents
1 1998-01-06 SEC COMMISSION OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 117396
15 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 15 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC COMMISSION OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SECURITIES
MARKUPS
MARKDOWNS
FIRM
EXCHANGE ACT
PREVAILING MARKET PRICE
INTERDEALER TRADES
WINE
MILLER
RETAIL TRADE
OPINION
FINDINGS
KARPF
DEW
COMMISSION
MARKET MAKER
LAW JUDGE
VIOLATIONS
FRAUDULENT MARKUPS
WINE INVESTMENTS
REGISTERED BROKER-DEALER
RESPONDENTS
PROCEEDING
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
TRANSACTION
QUOTATIONS
REGISTERED PRINCIPALS
RANDAL MILLER
ENFORCEMENT





                          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                   Washington, D.C.

     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
     Rel. No. 39517 / January 6, 1998

     Admin. Proc. File No. 3-8543
     _____________________________________________
                                                  :
                    In the Matter of              :
                                                  :
                D.E. WINE INVESTMENTS, INC.       :
                     Houston, Texas               :
                                                  :
                    W. RANDAL MILLER              :
                      Spring, Texas               :
                                                  :
                    KENNETH B. KARPF              :
                      Spring, Texas               :
                                                  :
                           AND                    :
                                                  :
                     DUNCAN E. WINE               :
                     Houston, Texas               :
     _____________________________________________:

     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

          BROKER-DEALER PROCEEDINGS

               Ground for Remedial Action

                    Fraudulent Markups and Markdowns

          Registered broker-dealer and three of its registered principals
were
          alleged to have charged fraudulent markups and markdowns.  Held,
law
          judge's findings of violations remanded for further findings.


     APPEARANCES:

SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • D.E. WINE INVESTMENTS, INC.:
  • OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
  • Registered broker-dealer and three of its registered principals were alleged to have charged
  • law judge's findings of violations remanded for further findings.
  • Roger A. Tolins, of Tolins & Lowenfels, for D.E. Wine Investments, Inc., W. Randal Miller,
  • D.E. Wine Investments, Inc., a registered broker-dealer,, W. Randal Miller, Kenneth B. Karpf,
  • Specifically, the law judge found that the Firm violated Section 17of the Securities Act of
  • The law judge also ordered the Firm to pay a penalty of $20,000, and "account and disgorge,"
  • Where the trade in question involved a markdown, the law judge used the same approach but
  • The Division of Enforcement also questions the validity
  • It is well recognized that undisclosed markups or markdowns on sales to or purchases from
  • As we have repeatedly held, a market maker in a competitive market, like DEW, is entitled to
  • Where there is more than one interdealer trade that could provide the basis for determining
  • Where there are no interdealer trades involving a market
  • generally gauged by reference to the interdealer transaction
  • Although we reject the law judge's analysis in many respects, we decline to accept
  • ORDER REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
  • ORDERED that this proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to an administrative law judge
  •    |