LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v PETER C. LYBRAND F/K/A PETER C. TOSTO LILLIAN A. MCEWEN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FILE NO. 3 Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 234, Defendant: Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C. Tosto Lillian A. McEwen, Administrative Law Judge File No. 3-11028, Plaintiff: SEC, State: FL Florida, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>234, Lybrand, Penny Stock, Securities, Exchange Act, Commission, Participating, Offering, Administrative Law Judge, Lybrand F/k/a Peter, Permanent, Div, Proceeding, Pursuant, United States, Bar, Exs, Connection, Eta Stock, Thereunder, United States District, Enforcement, Respondent Peter, States District Court, Future Violations, Manipulation, False Statements, Involvement, Misconduct, Criminal Conviction, Appearances Richard , ContentID: 120255912

Case Documents
1 2003-09-03 SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 133202
10 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 10 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PENNY STOCK
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT
COMMISSION
PARTICIPATING
OFFERING
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
LYBRAND F/K/A PETER
PERMANENT
DIV
PROCEEDING
PURSUANT
UNITED STATES
BAR
EXS
CONNECTION
ETA STOCK
THEREUNDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
ENFORCEMENT
RESPONDENT PETER
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FUTURE VIOLATIONS
MANIPULATION
FALSE STATEMENTS
INVOLVEMENT
MISCONDUCT
CRIMINAL CONVICTION
APPEARANCES RICHARD
Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge

Peter C. Lybrand

                                         INITIAL DECISION RELEASE NO. 234
                                                ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
                                                         FILE NO. 3-11028

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                 Before the
                     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
     _________________________________________________________________

   In the Matter of

   PETER C. LYBRAND
   f/k/a PETER C. TOSTO
     _________________________________________________________________

   INITIAL DECISION

   September 3, 2003

   APPEARANCES Richard E. Simpson and Laura M. Jarsulic for the Division
   of
   Enforcement, United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

   Jorge Luis Flores for Respondent Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C.
   Tosto.
   BEFORE Lillian A. McEwen, Administrative Law Judge.

SUMMARY

   Respondent Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C. Tosto (Lybrand) willfully
   violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
   (Securities Act), and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
   1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in connection with his
   involvement with certain penny stocks. This Initial Decision
   permanently bars Lybrand from participating in any offering of penny
   stock.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

   The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) instituted this
   proceeding on February 5, 2003, pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the
   Exchange Act, and Lybrand filed his Answer (Answer) on March 6, 2003.
   I held a public hearing in Eglin, Florida, from April 29 to 30, 2003,
   at which Lybrand testified and the Division of Enforcement (Division)
SNIPPETS:
  • Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge
  • Peter C. Lybrand
  • APPEARANCES Richard E. Simpson and Laura M. Jarsulic for the Division of Enforcement, United
  • Jorge Luis Flores for Respondent Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C. Tosto.
  • Respondent Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C. Tosto willfully violated Sections 5, 5, and 17of
  • This Initial Decision permanently bars Lybrand from participating in any offering of penny
  • I held a public hearing in Eglin, Florida, from April 29 to 30, 2003, at which Lybrand
  • The Order Instituting Proceedings alleged that on October 18, 2000, Lybrand pled guilty
  • In addition, the OIP alleged that the Criminal and Civil Actions both concerned Lybrand's
  • Finally, the OIP charged that as a result of his conduct underlying the Commission's civil
  • If I conclude that the allegations in the OIP are true, I must then determine whether a penny
  • 21-23, 219; Div.
  • Exs.
  • Lybrand was convicted of criminal securities fraud in connection with the company Video
  • Lybrand's misconduct underlying the instant proceeding began when he gained ownership and
  • In June 1998, Lybrand, often using Investor Relations, Inc., as his base of operations,
  • After the Commission suspended trading in Polus, Citron, and ETA stock, Lybrand made several
  • The Criminal Conviction and Permanent Injunction
  • he egregiousness of the respondent's actions, the isolated or recurrent nature of the of the
  •    |