LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v DENNIS S. HERULA Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 34-47266, Defendant: Dennis S. Herula, Plaintiff: SEC, State: OR Oregon, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-47266, Investment, Herula, Act, Respondent, Investment Adviser, Exchange Act, Securities, Commission, Oip, Pursuant, Broker, Investor Funds, Dennis, Motion, Accordance, Legacy, California, Civil, Account, Amount, Proceeding, Order Making Findings, Sanctions, Practice, Dealer, Representations, Rhode Island, Complaint, Civil Action , ContentID: 120255893

Case Documents
1 2003-01-28 SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 133183
3 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 3 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HERULA
ACT
RESPONDENT
INVESTMENT ADVISER
EXCHANGE ACT
SECURITIES
COMMISSION
OIP
COURT
PURSUANT
BROKER
INVESTOR FUNDS
DENNIS
MOTION
ACCORDANCE
LEGACY
CALIFORNIA
CIVIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
PROCEEDING
ORDER MAKING FINDINGS
SANCTIONS
PRACTICE
DEALER
REPRESENTATIONS
RHODE ISLAND
COMPLAINT
CIVIL ACTION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 47266/January 28, 2003

   INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940
   Release No. 2104/January 28, 2003

   ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
   FILE NO. 3-10931
     _________________________________________________________________

   In the Matter of

   DENNIS S. HERULA

   Respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS BY DEFAULT

   The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) instituted this
   proceeding pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
   1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act
   of 1940 (Advisers Act), on November 8, 2002, with an Order Instituting
   Proceedings (OIP). On January 24, 2003, the Division of Enforcement
   (Division) filed a Motion That Respondent Dennis S. Herula Be Found In
   Default and That An Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial
   Sanctions Be Entered Against Him (Motion), for Respondent's failure to
   file an answer to the OIP in accordance with Rule 220(f) of the
   Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220(f). The Motion,
   filed pursuant to Rule 155(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice,
   17 C.F.R. § 201.155(a), seeks an order barring Respondent from
   association with any broker or dealer and from any investment adviser.

   Respondent is in default under Rules 155(a) and 220(f) of the
   Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155(a), .220(f),
   because he failed to answer the OIP, or to respond to my December 13,
   2002, Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, I find the allegations in the
   OIP to be true

   Respondent was a registered representative with Raymond James
   Financial Services, Inc. from on or about August 24, 1999, to on or
   about January 4, 2001. Respondent is the president and registered
   agent of Legacy 2000 Associates, Inc. (Legacy 2000). Respondent, 55
   years old, maintains residences in Tiburon, California, Westerly,
SNIPPETS:
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  • ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING FILE NO. 3-10931
  • ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS BY DEFAULT
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding pursuant to Section 15of
  • On January 24, 2003, the Division of Enforcement filed a Motion That Respondent Dennis S.
  • Sanctions Be Entered Against Him, for Respondent's failure to file an answer to the OIP in
  • Respondent is the president and registered agent of Legacy 2000 Associates,
  • Respondent, 55 years old, maintains residences in Tiburon, California, Westerly, Rhode
  • Legacy 2000 has been incorporated in the State of California since January 25, 2001, and it
  • On April 1, 2002, the Commission filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
  • The complaint alleged that Respondent participated in a fraudulent scheme that raised
  • According to the Commission's complaint, Respondent played an integral role in the scheme by
  • On October 10, 2002, the court orally granted the Commission's motion for entry of final
  • Respondent was ordered to pay disgorgement, along with prejudgment interest, in the total
  • Herula also made various false representations to that investor regarding the status of his
  • In light of the allegations brought in the OIP, and Respondent's failure to answer the OIP,
  •    |