![]() |
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISTRICT EXCHANGE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT EXCHANGE COMMISSION DOCKET STOCK OFFERING PARTICIPATING BROKER-DEALER PROCEEDING FUTURE VIOLATIONS JUDGEMENT ALBERT TERRANOVA SETTLES ACTIVE DOCKET CALIFORNIA NORTHERN DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT RELATED CRIMINAL PROCEEDING DOCKET PENDING RESOLUTION SUSPENSE DOCKET PENDING INFLATED PRICES SOLD SCORPION COMMON STOCK SHARES FRAUDULENT SCHEME AMENDED COMPLAINT DEALER |
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Litigation Release No. 17975 / February 7, 2002
SEC Settles Financial Fraud Charges against Albert Terranova
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on December 11,
2002, the Honorable Barbara S. Jones, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, entered a Final Judgment of
Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief by Consent against
Albert Terranova ("Terranova") of Scottsdale, Arizona. The Final
Judgment enjoins him from future violations of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, and as a control person from future violations
of Sections 10(b) and 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act, Rules 10b-3,
10b-5, 15c1-2, 15c1-6, and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M
thereunder. Terranova was also ordered to pay $75,000 in disgorgement.
The Commission also announced that on February 6, 2003, it instituted
a settled administrative proceeding pursuant to Section 15(b) of the
Exchange Act against Terranova, an undisclosed principal of First
American Biltmore Securities, Inc. a now-defunct registered
broker-dealer. Terranova agreed to an order that barred him from
participating in any offering of a penny stock and from association
with any broker or dealer.
The Commission's Amended Complaint, filed on May 9, 1996, alleged that
Terranova and others participated in a fraudulent scheme involving a
registered offering of two million shares of Scorpion common stock
that they sold at inflated prices to the public. This case, which had
been put on the suspense docket pending resolution of a related
criminal proceeding in the District Court for the Northern District of
California, was restored to the active docket in July 2001.
See also (February 9, 1996), (April 18, 2002), (July 29, 2002)
_________________________________________________________________
Modified 02/07/2003
SNIPPETS:
|
| | | |