LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v J.W. BARCLAY & CO., INC., JOHN A. BRUNO, et al Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 233, Defendant: J.W. Barclay & Co., Inc., John A. Bruno, Michael J. Wills, Edgar B. Alacan, Emmanuel P. Cube, Mayer Dallal, Danoo Noor, Sr., Emanuele A. Scarso, Michael B. Scott James T. Kelly, Administrative Law Judge File No. 3-10765, Plaintiff: SEC, State: NY New York, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>233, Commission, Act, Securities, Proceeding, Administrative Law Judge, Exchange, Disgorgement, Prejudgment, Pursuant, Judgement, Practice, Postjudgment, Violations, Pay, Alacan, Civil Penalty, Respondent, Enforcement, District Court, Disgorgement Awards, United States, Calculation, Financial Sanctions, Penalties, Federal Court, Material Fact, Underpayment Rate, Internal Revenue Code, Compounding, Collectability , ContentID: 120255913

Case Documents
1 2003-07-23 SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 133203
26 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 26 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ACT
SECURITIES
PROCEEDING
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
EXCHANGE
DISGORGEMENT
PREJUDGMENT
PURSUANT
JUDGEMENT
PRACTICE
POSTJUDGMENT
VIOLATIONS
PAY
ALACAN
CIVIL PENALTY
RESPONDENT
ENFORCEMENT
DISTRICT COURT
DISGORGEMENT AWARDS
UNITED STATES
CALCULATION
FINANCIAL SANCTIONS
PENALTIES
FEDERAL COURT
MATERIAL FACT
UNDERPAYMENT RATE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
COMPOUNDING
COLLECTABILITY
Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge

J.W. Barclay & Co., Inc., John A. Bruno, Michael J. Wills, Edgar B. Alacan,
Emmanuel P. Cube, Mayer Dallal, Danoo Noor, Sr., Emanuele A. Scarso, Michael
B. Scott

                                         INITIAL DECISION RELEASE NO. 233
                                                ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
                                                         FILE NO. 3-10765

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                 Before the
                     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
     _________________________________________________________________

   In the Matter of

   J.W. BARCLAY & CO., INC.
   JOHN A. BRUNO
   MICHAEL J. WILLS
   EDGAR B. ALACAN
   EMMANUEL P. CUBE
   MAYER DALLAL
   DANOO NOOR, SR.
   EMANUELE A. SCARSO
   MICHAEL B. SCOTT
     _________________________________________________________________

   INITIAL DECISION AS TO
   MAYER DALLAL
   July 23, 2003

   APPEARANCES Joy M. Boddie, Charles J. Kerstetter, and Kathryn A.
   Pyszka for the Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange
   Commission.

   Mayer Dallal, pro se.
   BEFORE James T. Kelly, Administrative Law Judge.

   The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission or SEC) instituted
   this proceeding against Mayer Dallal (Dallal) and others on April 24,
   2002, pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities
   Act) and Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
   (Exchange Act). Dallal filed a timely answer. I held four days of
   hearings during March and April 2003 in New York City.

   At a telephonic prehearing conference on March 19, 2003, the
   Commission's Division of Enforcement (Division) and Dallal announced
SNIPPETS:
  • Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge
  • SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  • J.W. BARCLAY & CO., INC. JOHN A. BRUNO MICHAEL J. WILLS EDGAR B. ALACAN EMMANUEL P. CUBE
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding against Mayer Dallal and
  • At a telephonic prehearing conference on March 19, 2003, the Commission's Division of
  • See Rule 250of the Commission's Rules of Practice,
  • I find that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the following allegations
  • To protect the public interest, the Division seeks a cease-and-desist order against Dallal,
  • He also waived the opportunity to argue that a civil penalty of $110,000 is not warranted
  • Dallal opposed the imposition of any financial sanctions (i.e., disgorgement, interest, and a
  • In calculating prejudgment interest on the sum to be disgorged, I have also considered the
  • When multiple parties are involved in a civil action, a federal district court may direct the
  • While the Commission's Rules of Practice do not explicitly authorize Administrative Law
  • In Administrative Proceeding No. 3-9144, Michael Lapp and William Lucas, an Administrative
  • Dallal argues that the Division has failed to explain the basis for its calculation of
  • Prejudgment interest "shall" be due on any sum required to be paid pursuant to an order of
  • Those opinions and orders typically did not discuss the methodologies to be used for
  • In adopting Rule 600 of its Rules of Practice, the Commission explained the rationale for
  • Rule 600of the Commission's Rules of Practice provides that interest on the sum to be
  • Such evidence may relate to the extent of the respondent's ability to continue in business
  • The Commission has already taken into account the financial circumstances of those four
  • When the Commission wins the remedy of disgorgement in the federal court system, an award of
  •    |