LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

SEC v PIPER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., MARIJO A. GOLDSTEIN, et al Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 33-8276, Defendant: Piper Capital Management, Inc., Marijo A. Goldstein, Robert H. Nelson, Amy K. Johnson, and Molly J. Destro Rel. Nos. 34-48409, IC-26167, IA-2163, Plaintiff: SEC, State: WA Washington, UniqueCaseRef: SEC>33-8276, Fund, Securities, Goldstein, Act, Violations, Pricing, Destro, Johnson, Investment, Nelson, Price, Exchange Act, Report, Pcm, Disclosure, Nav, Commission, Investment Adviser, Investment Company, Proceeding, Iftc, Material Fact, Respondents, Piper Capital Management, Cmos, Fraudulent, Investment Policy, Portfolio Manager, Future Violations, Disclosure Documents , ContentID: 120255935

Case Documents
1 2003-08-26 SEC COMMISSION OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 133225
43 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 43 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SEC COMMISSION OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SECURITIES
GOLDSTEIN
ACT
VIOLATIONS
PRICING
DESTRO
JOHNSON
INVESTMENT
NELSON
PRICE
EXCHANGE ACT
REPORT
PCM
DISCLOSURE
NAV
COMMISSION
INVESTMENT ADVISER
INVESTMENT COMPANY
PROCEEDING
IFTC
MATERIAL FACT
RESPONDENTS
PIPER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
CMOS
FRAUDULENT
INVESTMENT POLICY
PORTFOLIO MANAGER
FUTURE VIOLATIONS
DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.

Securities Act of 1933
Rel. No. 8276 / August 26, 2003

Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Rel. No. 48409 / August 26, 2003

Investment Company Act of 1940
Rel. No. 26167 / August 26, 2003

Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Rel. No. 2163 / August 26, 2003

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-9657
     _________________________________________________________________

   In the Matter of

   PIPER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.,
   MARIJO A. GOLDSTEIN,
   ROBERT H. NELSON,
   AMY K. JOHNSON, and
   MOLLY J. DESTRO
     _________________________________________________________________

   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

   CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDING
   INVESTMENT ADVISER PROCEEDING
   INVESTMENT COMPANY PROCEEDING

   Grounds for Remedial Action

   Antifraud Violations
   Violations of Disclosure Requirements
   Fraudulent Pricing of Net Asset Value

   Accounts and Records Violations
   Falsification of Reports

   Aiding, Abetting, and Causing Unlawful Change of Investment Policy

   Registered investment adviser and associated person made fraudulent
   statements and omitted material facts in connection with the offer and
   sale of fund securities. Adviser aided, abetted, and was a cause of
   changes in managed fund's investment policy without shareholder
SNIPPETS:
  • Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  • Investment Advisers Act of 1940
  • CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDING INVESTMENT ADVISER PROCEEDING
  • INVESTMENT COMPANY PROCEEDING
  • Antifraud Violations Violations of Disclosure Requirements
  • Registered investment adviser and associated person made fraudulent statements and omitted
  • Adviser aided, abetted, and was a cause of changes in managed fund's investment policy
  • Held, it is in the public interest to revoke the investment adviser's registration; order the
  • and, of Leonard, Street, and Deinard, for Piper Capital Management, Inc.
  • and, of Foley & Lardner, and, of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, for Marijo A.
  • and, of Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., for Robert H. Nelson.
  • and, of Gardner, Carton & Douglas, for Amy K. Johnson.
  • and, of Greene Espel, P.L.L.P., for Molly J. Destro.
  • The law judge found that PCM and Goldstein violated Section 17of the Securities Act of 1933,
  • Destro had pricing responsibilities and acted as a liaison between PCM portfolio managers and
  • CMOs may be structured into several classes or tranches of bonds, and may have different
  • In its 1994 Semi-annual Report, the Fund disclosed that "mortgage-backed derivative
  • PCM generally would utilize an outside pricing service to value Fund portfolio securities and
  • IFTC was responsible for sending the daily NAV calculation to the Fund's transfer agent and
  • Promptly upon receipt of the Fund's daily initial pricing/stratification reports, PCM
  • PCM argues that there is no likelihood of its committing future violations, as the law judge
  •    |