 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HATFIELD EXCHANGE COMMISSION MARADA GDF CIVIL CONTEMPT JUDGEMENT SECURITIES ACT VIOLATING PERMANENT INJUNCTION MARADA GLOBAL CORPORATION PETERSBURG PRIOR FLORIDA FRAUDULENT DISTRICT COURT STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION CRIMINAL CONVICTION ORDER FREEZING HATFIELD ASSETS ORDER PROHIBITING DESTRUCTION EXPEDITING DISCOVERY ORDER REQUIRING HATFIELD ACCOUNTING ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER REQUEST ORDER HOLDING HATFIELD RELIEF |
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 17441 / March 27, 2002
SEC SEEKS CIVIL CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AGAINST A WELL KNOWN RECIDIVIST OF
FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS AND A ST. PETERSBURG COMPANY FOR VIOLATING A
FEDERAL PERMANENT INJUNCTION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. MARADA GLOBAL CORPORATION,
MARADA CAPITAL and HATFIELD, Case No. 94-CV-1504.
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or the "Commission")
announced that on March 26, 2002, it filed an emergency federal
application for an order to show cause why Roc G. Hatfield and Global
Diamond Fund, Inc. ("GDF") should not be held in civil contempt for
disobeying a prior final judgment of permanent injunction entered
against Hatfield, by consent, on September 8, 1995, in SEC v. Marada
Global Corporation, Marada Capital and Hatfield, Case No. 94-CV-1504
(the "final judgment"). The final judgment enjoins Hatfield from
future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and Sections 10(b), 15(a) and 15(g) and
Rules 10b-5, 15g-2, 15g-4, 15g-5 and 15g-9 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
In the Application for an Order to Show Cause, the SEC alleged that
since at least September 2001 through the present, Hatfield and GDF (a
private Florida corporation founded and operated by Hatfield in St.
Petersburg, Florida) have been violating Sections 5(c) and 17(a) of
the Securities Act and the Marada final judgment by fraudulently
offering unregistered securities in the form of nine-month 24% APR
high yield secured notes. The SEC further alleged that Hatfield and
GDF have failed to disclose to potential investors Hatfield's
disreputable past that includes two fraudulent securities schemes that
resulted in his being the subject of two prior federal permanent
injunctions, an SEC administrative bar from the securities industry,
two state securities commission orders and a criminal conviction.
On March 26, 2002, the District Court in Tampa entered an Order to
Show Cause Why Hatfield and GDF Should Not Be Held in Civil Contempt,
an order freezing Hatfield and GDF's assets, an order prohibiting the
destruction of documents and expediting discovery, an order requiring
Hatfield and GDF to provide an accounting and an order appointing a
receiver. On April 26, 2002, the District Court will hold a hearing to
decide the SEC's request for an order holding Hatfield and GDF in
civil contempt and other relief.
_________________________________________________________________
Modified 03/27/2002
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
