 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EXCHANGE ACT SECURITIES BROKER-DEALER PROCEEDING STOCK JAMES SANCTION VIOLATING THRIFTS OIP COMMISSION BANKS BAR LAW CONVERSION PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES PURSUANT PURCHASE MATTER FINDINGS FRAUDULENT SCHEME WACHOVIA SECURITIES THEREUNDER DEFEND UNDERSTANDING SEEKING MEANING ACCORDS PRACTICES |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 46317/August 6, 2002
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-10830
_________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of
JAMES A. NIES,
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND
IMPOSING SANCTIONS BY DEFAULT
SUMMARY
This Order bars James A. Nies from association with a broker-dealer.
Nies had been enjoined from violations of the antifraud provisions of
the federal securities laws after he engaged in a fraudulent scheme
that involved the stock of banks that were converting from mutually
owned thrifts to publicly traded companies. His wrongdoing occurred
during his employment with a broker-dealer that was a predecessor to
Wachovia Securities, Inc.
I. BACKGROUND
The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) issued its Order
Instituting Proceedings (OIP) in this matter on July 15, 2002,
pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act). The OIP alleges that James A. Nies was associated with
a broker-dealer from January 1995 until August 1997, and was
permanently enjoined from violating Section 10(b)(5) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Nies was served with the OIP on July
18, 2002. On July 30, 2002, Nies affirmatively stated that he would
not defend the proceeding, based on his understanding that the
Division of Enforcement (Division) is seeking to bar him from the
securities industry and is not seeking any monetary sanction. On
August 2, 2002, the Division asked that the proceeding by resolved by
default, pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 201.155(a)(2). The Division seeks a
broker-dealer bar, the maximum sanction authorized in the OIP.
Nies is in default within the meaning of 17 C.F.R. § 201.155(a)(2) in
that he affirmatively declined to defend the proceeding. Accordingly,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
