Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge
Huber Hogan Consulting, Inc., Russon Financial Service, Inc. and Robert C.
Sears
INITIAL DECISION RELEASE NO. 212
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
FILE NO. 3-9985
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
_________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of
HUBER HOGAN CONSULTING, INC.,
RUSSON FINANCIAL SERVICE, INC.,
and ROBERT C. SEARS.
_________________________________________________________________
INITIAL DECISION
August 13, 2002
APPEARANCES Rabia Cebeci, Esq. and Joel Kornfeld, Esq. for the
Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission
Timothy A. Knotts and Robert E. Hogan appeared pro se for Huber Hogan
Consulting, Inc.
BEFORE Lillian A. McEwen, Administrative Law Judge
SUMMARY
Huber Hogan Consulting, Inc. (Huber Hogan), willfully violated Section
204 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and Rule
204-5 thereunder by failing to file Part I of Form ADV-Y2K by the June
7, 1999, deadline. This Initial Decision (Decision) imposes sanctions
on Huber Hogan, including a cease-and-desist order and a censure.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 26, 1999, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(Commission) issued an Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP) pursuant to
Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Advisers Act. On February 29, 2000,
a public hearing was held before me, with regard to Huber Hogan, in
New York, New York. Russon Financial Services, Inc., and Robert C.
SNIPPETS:
Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge
Huber Hogan Consulting, Inc., Russon Financial Service, Inc. and Robert C. Sears
Securities and Exchange Commission
Huber Hogan Consulting, Inc., willfully violated Section 204 of the Investment Advisers Act
This Initial Decision imposes sanctions on Huber Hogan, including a cease-and-desist order
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Division of Enforcement called two witnesses in its case in chief.
Timothy Knotts testified on behalf of Huber Hogan and called one additional witness in its
The OIP alleges that Huber Hogan has been registered with the Commission as an investment
If I conclude that the allegations in the OIP are true, I must then determine what, if any,
35-38; Div.
Rabia Cebeci, senior special counsel at the Commission's Pacific Regional Office in Los
On July 9, 1999, the LA Office's staff sent a second letter to Huber Hogan by Federal
Although Section 204 and Rule 204-5 do not explicitly require a finding of willfullness,
The Division requests a censure, a cease-and-desist order, and a civil monetary penalty be
It requests a first-tier penalty of $10,000, and argues that the amount is consistent with
he egregiousness of the defendant's actions, the isolated or recurrent nature of the
Section 203of the Advisers Act authorizes the Commission to censure any investment adviser if
Here the late filing reveals the absence of an internal system for ensuring that the
In determining whether a penalty is in the public interest, Section 203authorizes the
|
