LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v ROBERT L. BENTLEY, et al Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: LR-17950, CourtCode: DIS, CourtName: ON DECEMBER 27, 2002, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JAY C., Defendant: Robert L. Bentley, Entrust Group and Bentley Financial Services, Inc., Plaintiff: SEC, State: IN Indiana, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>LR-17950, Securities, Investors, Cds, Selling, Bentley, Buying, Complaint, Act, Commission, Exchange, Buying Higher Risk, Low-risk, Repayment, Attract, Ability, Investor Funds, Deposit, Federally Insured Certificates, Allegations, Denying, Admitting, Injunction, Entry, Thereunder, Violating, Restraining Robert, Order Permanently Enjoining , ContentID: 120254965

Case Documents
1 2003-01-24 SEC LITIGATION RELEASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 132147
1 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 1 page.    CAUTION.    PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A ONE PAGE CASE.
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC LITIGATION RELEASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SECURITIES
INVESTORS
CDS
SELLING
BENTLEY
BUYING
COMPLAINT
ACT
LITIGATION
COMMISSION
EXCHANGE
BUSINESS
BUYING HIGHER RISK
LOW-RISK
REPAYMENT
ATTRACT
ABILITY
INVESTOR FUNDS
DEPOSIT
FEDERALLY INSURED CERTIFICATES
ALLEGATIONS
DENYING
ADMITTING
INJUNCTION
ENTRY
THEREUNDER
VIOLATING
RESTRAINING ROBERT
ORDER PERMANENTLY ENJOINING
U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 17950 / January 24, 2003

   On December 27, 2002, United States District Court Judge Jay C.
   Waldman entered an order permanently enjoining and restraining Robert
   L. Bentley from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933;
   and Sections 15(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
   and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Bentley consented to the entry of the
   injunction without admitting or denying the allegations of the
   Commission's complaint.

   The Commission's complaint alleged that the defendants, including
   Bentley, claimed to be selling bank-issued, federally insured
   certificates of deposit ("CDs"), but that the defendants were in fact
   selling uninsured securities. Although the defendants were using at
   least some investor funds to buy CDs, the terms of the CDs often
   varied substantially from those of the securities defendants were
   selling. The Commission also alleged that, in many cases, investors
   had to rely on the defendants' ability to attract new investors in
   order for previous investors to receive repayment of their principal.
   Accordingly, investors were not buying the low-risk, federally-insured
   CDs that they were promised. Rather, they were buying higher risk
   securities issued by defendants, whose business was uninsured,
   unaudited and unregulated.

   For further information see Litigation Releases (January 9, 2002);
   (November 13, 2001); (October 25, 2001); (October 23, 2001).

     _________________________________________________________________

Modified 01/27/2003
SNIPPETS:
  • U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • Litigation Release No. 17950 / January 24,
  • On December 27, 2002, United States District Court Judge Jay C. Waldman entered an order
  • Bentley consented to the entry of the injunction without admitting or denying the allegations
  • The Commission's complaint alleged that the defendants, including Bentley, claimed to be
  • Although the defendants were using at least some investor funds to buy CDs, the terms of the
  • The Commission also alleged that, in many cases, investors had to rely on the defendants'
  • Accordingly, investors were not buying the low-risk, federally-insured CDs that they were
  • Rather, they were buying higher risk securities issued by defendants, whose business was
  •    |