United States of America
before the
Securities and Exchange Commission
Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Release No. 2173 / September 17, 2003
Administrative Proceeding
File No. 3-11225
_________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of
LOUIS W. RATFIELD
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS BY DEFAULT
The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) initiated this
proceeding on August 18, 2003, with an Order Instituting Proceedings
(OIP), pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 (Advisers Act). The OIP was served on Respondent Louis W.
Ratfield (Ratfield) on August 21, 2003. By the terms of the OIP and
Rule 220(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R.
201.220(b), Ratfield's Answer was due twenty days thereafter, , by
September 10, 2003.
Ratfield has not filed an Answer and has failed to appear at a
September 8 prehearing conference of which he had been notified.
Accordingly, Ratfield is in default within the meaning of Rules 155(a)
and 220(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R.
201.155(a), .220(f), and an Administrative Law Judge may determine the
proceeding against him upon consideration of the record, including the
OIP, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true.
I find the following allegations to be true
Ratfield, age 63, is a resident of Lake Worth, Florida. During all
relevant times, Ratfield was acting as an unregistered investment
adviser and was the general manager of two investment clubs,
Stonehenge Enterprises Pure Trust (Stonehenge) and The Baron Financial
Services (Baron), purported "Common Law Trusts" formed by Ratfield.
On March 14, 2003, the Commission filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
Ratfield. , Civil Action No. 03-80197-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS/JOHNSON (S.D.
SNIPPETS:
Administrative Proceeding
The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated this proceeding on August 18, 2003, with an
The OIP was served on Respondent Louis W. Ratfield on August 21,
By the terms of the OIP and Rule 220of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. §
Accordingly, Ratfield is in default within the meaning of Rules 155and 220of the Commission's
I find the following allegations to be true
During all relevant times, Ratfield was acting as an unregistered investment adviser and was
On March 14, 2003, the Commission filed a complaint in the United States District Court for
The Commission's complaint charged Ratfield with violating the registration and antifraud
On July 25, 2003, the District Court entered an order granting the Commission's Motion for
The Order permanently enjoins Ratfield from violating Sections 5, 5, and 17of the Securities
In light of the foregoing, I find that it is in the public interest to bar Ratfield from
IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 203of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, that Louis W.
|
