LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v G. BRADLEY TAYLOR LILLIAN A. MCEWEN, et al Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 215, Defendant: G. Bradley Taylor Lillian A. McEwen, Administrative Law Judge File No. 3-9955, Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>215, Taylor, Exchange Act, Securities, Commission, Customers, Sale, Ftet, Omission, Pursuant, Laws, Ftet Stock, United States, Shares, Investors, Lempel, Recommending, Compensation, Future Violations, Brokerage Account, Bradley Taylor, Imposes Sanctions, Agreement, Material Fact, Receiving, Registered Representatives, Administrative Law Judge, Cease-and-desist Order, Disgorgement, Indian Motorcycle, Making Material Omissions , ContentID: 120253706

Case Documents
1 2002-09-24 SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 130074
19 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 19 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EXCHANGE ACT
SECURITIES
COMMISSION
CUSTOMERS
SALE
FTET
OMISSION
PURSUANT
LAWS
FTET STOCK
UNITED STATES
SHARES
INVESTORS
LEMPEL
RECOMMENDING
COMPENSATION
FUTURE VIOLATIONS
BROKERAGE ACCOUNT
BRADLEY TAYLOR
IMPOSES SANCTIONS
AGREEMENT
MATERIAL FACT
RECEIVING
REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER
DISGORGEMENT
INDIAN MOTORCYCLE
MAKING MATERIAL OMISSIONS
Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge

G. Bradley Taylor

                                         INITIAL DECISION RELEASE NO. 215
                                                ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
                                                          FILE NO. 3-9955

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                 Before the
                     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                              Washington, D.C.
     _________________________________________________________________

   In the Matter of

   G. BRADLEY TAYLOR
     _________________________________________________________________

   INITIAL DECISION

   September 24, 2002

   APPEARANCES Mary Scherschel Brady and Polly A. Atkinson for the
   Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission.

   Howard J. Stein for Respondent.
   BEFORE Lillian A. McEwen, Administrative Law Judge

                                  SUMMARY

   The Respondent, G. Bradley Taylor (Taylor), violated Section 17(a) of
   the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
   Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by willfully making material
   omissions in the sale of securities to his customers. This Initial
   Decision imposes sanctions on Taylor, including a bar and a
   cease-and-desist order.

                             PROCEDURAL HISTORY

   The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission)
   issued an order instituting these public administrative and
   cease-and-desist proceedings against Taylor, pursuant to Section 8A of
   the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Sections 15(b) and 21C
   of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The Order
   Instituting Proceedings (OIP) was filed on August 2, 1999.

                                THE HEARING
SNIPPETS:
  • Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge
  • G. Bradley Taylor
  • APPEARANCES Mary Scherschel Brady and Polly A. Atkinson for the Division of Enforcement,
  • The Respondent, G. Bradley Taylor, violated Section 17of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
  • This Initial Decision imposes sanctions on Taylor, including a bar and a cease-and-desist
  • The United States Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order instituting these public
  • The OIP alleged that Taylor willfully violated Section 17of the Securities Act, Section 10of
  • In late 1993, Taylor began working in the Chicago branch office of Investors Associates,
  • In 1995, First Entertainment, Inc. (FTET) was a diversified multi-media entertainment company
  • In February 1995, FTET expanded into the licensing arena by signing a series of agreements
  • Some principals of FTET met with Morton B. Lempel in the end of February 1995, in Denver,
  • the three men discussed Taylor's relationship with FTET and entered into an oral agreement
  • Taylor then called his mother and had her open a brokerage account in her name.
  • Taylor did not tell Tabb that he would be compensated for Tabb's purchase of FTET stock by
  • The OIP charges that Taylor violated Section 17of the Securities Act, Section 10of the
  • The Division also contends that Taylor violated Section 17of the Securities Act, Section 10of
  • The Division recommends that Taylor be barred from associating with any broker or dealer and
  • The Division seeks disgorgement from Taylor of the $59,361 generated from the sale of FTET
  • Taylor also contends that he received FTET stock only for his services in connection with
  • I conclude that Taylor violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws.
  • to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means
  •    |