LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v DALE E. FREY, ROGER A. RAWLINGS, et al Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 221, Defendant: Dale E. Frey, Roger A. Rawlings, and William C. Piontek Lillian A. McEwen, Administrative Law Judge File No. 3-10310, Plaintiff: SEC, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>221, Piontek, Securities, Exchange Act, Recommendations, Account, Trading, Hamby, Dean, Frey, Investment, Commission, Trade, Unauthorized Trading, Nasdaq Options, William, Customer, Thereunder, Investment Objectives, Administrative Law Judge, Registered Representatives, Respondent William, Speculative Investments, Qualification Form, Transaction, Future Violations, Suitability, Purchasing, Cease-and-desist Order, Ira, Discretion , ContentID: 120255925

Case Documents
1 2003-02-05 SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 133215
32 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 32 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCOUNT
TRADING
HAMBY
DEAN
FREY
INVESTMENT
COMMISSION
TRADE
UNAUTHORIZED TRADING
NASDAQ OPTIONS
WILLIAM
CUSTOMER
THEREUNDER
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVES
RESPONDENT WILLIAM
SPECULATIVE INVESTMENTS
QUALIFICATION FORM
TRANSACTION
FUTURE VIOLATIONS
SUITABILITY
PURCHASING
CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER
IRA
DISCRETION
Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge

Dale E. Frey, Roger A. Rawlings, and William C. Piontek

                                         INITIAL DECISION RELEASE NO. 221
                                                ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
                                                         FILE NO. 3-10310

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                 Before the
                     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
     _________________________________________________________________

   In the Matter of

   DALE E. FREY,
   ROGER A. RAWLINGS,
   and WILLIAM C. PIONTEK
     _________________________________________________________________

   INITIAL DECISION

   February 5, 2003

   APPEARANCES Thomas D. Carter and James A. Scoggins for the Division of
   Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission.

   S. Lawrence Polk for Respondent William C. Piontek.
   BEFORE Lillian A. McEwen, Administrative Law Judge.

                                  SUMMARY

   Respondent William C. Piontek violated Section 17(a) of the Securities
   Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
   Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by willfully engaging in unauthorized trading,
   and recommending unsuitable securities. This Initial Decision imposes
   a bar and a cease-and-desist order on Respondent William C. Piontek.

                             PROCEDURAL HISTORY

   The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission)
   instituted these proceedings on September 26, 2000, against
   Respondents Dale E. Frey (Frey), Roger A. Rawlings (Rawlings), and
   William C. Piontek (Piontek) pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities
   Act of 1933 (Securities Act), and Sections 15(b), 19(h), and 21C of
   the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). Frey and Rawlings
   have settled this matter with the Commission, which issued an Order
   Making Findings And Imposing Remedial Sanctions against Frey on
SNIPPETS:
  • Initial Decision of an SEC Administrative Law Judge
  • Dale E. Frey, Roger A. Rawlings, and William C. Piontek
  • APPEARANCES Thomas D. Carter and James A. Scoggins for the Division of Enforcement,
  • Respondent William C. Piontek violated Section 17of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10of
  • This Initial Decision imposes a bar and a cease-and-desist order on Respondent William C.
  • The Order Instituting Proceedings alleged that Piontek willfully violated Section 17of the
  • Piontek contends that the investments at issue were suitable for his customers in that they
  • Piontek argues that the Division's introduction of evidence or claims regarding David Dean is
  • If I conclude that the allegations in the OIP are true, I must then determine what, if any, 0of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act and
  • At Dean Witter, Piontek formed the Pilot Investment Group, which consisted of Piontek and
  • The NASDAQ Options are contracts that derive their value from the movement of the NASDAQ 100
  • Piontek knew that an investor could lose all of the money within a day or two of purchasing
  • Massachusetts learned that Piontek had been the subject of eighteen customer complaints and
  • Some of the restrictions placed on Piontek included a requirement that Piontek verify that de with Gillespie; a requirement that Piontek receive Gillespie's approval of account and option
  • Robert E. Hamby graduated from Piedmont College in 1959, where he majored in business
  • Hamby gave a main broker at Merrill Lynch discretion to trade conservative investments such
  • The Compliance Manual stated that to document the suitability requirements, an account
  • Piontek stated that the system for determining investment objectives is "imperfect."
  • The Compliance Manual also required that several pieces of information and documentation be
  • In May 1988, Dean was sent a lump sum check of over $430,000 from his Eastern Airlines
  • Dean never placed trades with Owens, but might have agreed to a transaction while talking to
  •    |