LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v ERIC PEREMAN Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 34-47399, CourtCode: SM, CourtName: C. ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1999, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW, Defendant: Eric Pereman, Plaintiff: SEC, State: NY New York, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-47399, Pereman, Meyers Pollock, Securities, Broker, Stock, Exchange, Oip, York, Sold, Commission, Proceeding, Eric Pereman, Respondent, Dealer, Bribes, Securities Exchange Act, Guilty, Superior Court Information, Stock Promoter, Fraudulently Sold, Portion, Payments, Pleading Guilty, Passing, Co-worker, Heng Fai China, Fai China Industries, United Acquisitions, United Entertainment , ContentID: 120255861

Case Documents
1 2003-02-25 SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 133151
2 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MEYERS POLLOCK
SECURITIES
BROKER
STOCK
EXCHANGE
OIP
YORK
COURT
SOLD
COMMISSION
PROCEEDING
ERIC PEREMAN
RESPONDENT
DEALER
BRIBES
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
GUILTY
SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION
STOCK PROMOTER
FRAUDULENTLY SOLD
PORTION
PAYMENTS
PLEADING GUILTY
PASSING
CO-WORKER
HENG FAI CHINA
FAI CHINA INDUSTRIES
UNITED ACQUISITIONS
UNITED ENTERTAINMENT
United States of America
before the
Securities and Exchange Commission

Securities Exchange Act Of 1934
Release No. 47399 / February 25, 2003

Administrative Proceeding
File No. 3-11017
     _________________________________________________________________

   In the Matter of

   Eric Pereman

   Respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTION BY DEFAULT

I.

   Respondent Eric Pereman is in default under Rule 155(a) of the
   Securities and Exchange Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice,
   17 C.F.R. § 201.155(a), because he has failed to file an Answer to the
   Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP), which Answer, by the terms of the
   OIP, was due on February 14, 2003. Furthermore, by letter, dated
   February 23, 2003, Respondent, by counsel, states that he has received
   the OIP and that he will accept a disposition by default.

II.

   Accordingly, I find the allegations in the OIP, dated January 24,
   2003, are true

   A. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Meyers Pollock Robbins,
   Inc. (Meyers Pollock) was a broker-dealer registered with the
   Commission and headquartered in New York, New York. It was a member of
   the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and
   engaged in a general securities business. Meyers Pollock ceased its
   operations in 1997.

   B. Pereman was employed by Meyers Pollock as a broker from in or about
   January 1996 to in or about October 1996.

   C. On September 17, 1999, in the Supreme Court of the State of New
   York, County of New York, Criminal Term, Pereman pled guilty to one
   count of attempted enterprise corruption based upon his conduct while
SNIPPETS:
  • Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Respondent Eric Pereman is in default under Rule 155of the Securities and Exchange
  • At all times relevant to this proceeding, Meyers Pollock Robbins, Inc. was a broker-dealer
  • On September 17, 1999, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
  • The Superior Court Information filed against Pereman charged that he took part in a scheme
  • E. In pleading guilty to the court on September 17, 1999, Pereman admitted to taking bribes
  • Pereman admitted that he and a co-worker generally received payments from the stock promoter
  • The securities fraudulently sold included Heng Fai China Industries, United Acquisitions, and
  • As a result of the foregoing, it is necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors
  •    |