U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
SEC Seal
Home | Previous Page
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22879 / November 25, 2013

Securities and Exchange Commission v. MedLink International, Inc., Aurelio Vuono, and James Rose, Civil Action No. 12-CV-5325 (EDNY) (LDW)

District Court Denies Motion to Vacate Default Judgment Against Medical Software Company and Its CEO

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on November 25, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied defendant Aurelio Vuono’s motion to vacate the default judgments previously entered against MedLink International, Inc., a medical software company, and its CEO, Aurelio Vuono, also known as Ray Vuono. The Commission had charged MedLink, Vuono, and MedLink’s CFO, James Rose, with filing an annual report falsely stating that MedLink’s audit had been completed and with defrauding a MedLink investor. In its ruling, the court found that Vuono’s default was wilful and that he had failed to present any meritorious defense to the Commission’s charges.

Previously, on May 23, 2013, the court had entered default judgments against the defendants and ordered permanent injunctions from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 15d-1 and 15d-14. The court also ordered each defendant to disgorge, jointly and severally, $149,473/50, representing their illicit profits, together with pre-judgment interest of $8,942.48, for a total of $158,415.98. In addition, the court ordered civil penalties of $650,000 against MedLink, $130,000 against Vuono, and $130,000 against Rose. Finally, the court barred Vuono and Rose from penny stock offerings or severing as an officer or director of a public company.

Vuono, a resident of Huntington Station, New York, is a recidivist securities law violator. In SEC v. Hasho, et al, 784 F.Supp. 1059 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), Vuono was found liable for violating the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

For further information about the case, see Litigation Releases Nos. 22521 (Oct. 26, 2012) and 22709 (May 30, 2013).

 

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22879.htm


Modified: 11/25/2013