 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SECURITIES ACT EXCHANGE ACT INVESTMENT ADVISERS OIP DEALER DISTRICT COURT COMMISSION SHARAD KAPOOR PURSUANT REPRESENTATIONS MERRILL LYNCH BROKER MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALER UNITED STATES PROCEEDING FINDINGS ENFORCEMENT PRACTICE COMPLAINT SEKHRI VIOLATIONS MOTION FUTURE VIOLATIONS PAY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS DISGORGEMENT PREJUDGMENT CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES FAILURE |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 47520/March 18, 2003
INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940
Release No. 2115/March 18, 2003
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-10945
_________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of
SHARAD KAPOOR
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS BY DEFAULT
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) issued its
Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP) on November 21, 2002, pursuant to
Sections 15(b)(6) and 15B(c)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 (Advisers Act). The Division of Enforcement (Division) represents
that the OIP has been properly served upon Sharad Kapoor (Kapoor or
Respondent). See Declaration of Kenneth J. Guido, dated March 17, 2003
(representing that delivery of the OIP to Kapoor was effectuated in
late November or early December 2002); Supplemental Memorandum of the
Division of Enforcement, dated March 13, 2003. Based on the Division's
representations, I find that Kapoor has failed to file an answer
within the time allowed, and is in default. See Rules 155(a) and
220(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Accordingly, I find that the following allegations in the OIP are true
Between June 1993 and May 1998, Kapoor was associated with Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch), a registered
broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, and investment adviser.
On April 1, 1998, the Commission filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York in an
action captioned SEC v. Sekhri, 98 Civ. 2320 (RPP) (S.D.N.Y.). The
complaint was subsequently amended to charge additional defendants,
including Kapoor, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
