United States Securities and Exchange Commission
LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 17226 / November 8, 2001
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GARY LANDON DAVENPORT, dba Southwest Family Trust Service, Financial Marketing Service and Liberty Marketing Service, RUSSELL REEVES, dba Enterra Marketing Service, RICHARD EARL RUSSELL and GREGORY MONROE ROBERTS, Case No. 7:99-CV-185-R, USDC, NDTX (Wichita Falls Division)
The Commission announced that on October 29, 2001, the Honorable Jerry Buchmeyer, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Texas, entered Final Judgments as to Defendants Gary Landon Davenport, Individually and doing business as Southwest Family Trust Service, Financial Marketing Service and Liberty Marketing Service, Richard Earl Russell, Russell Dane Reeves and Gregory Monroe Roberts permanently enjoining the defendants from committing future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and Sections 10(b), 15(a)(1) and 15(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5 and 15c1-2 thereunder. Because of related criminal proceedings, in which the defendants were imprisoned for terms ranging from 37 months to 20 years and were held jointly and several liable for restitution of $2.6 million to investors, the Commission accepted consents by the defendants to the orders of permanent injunction and dismissed claims for disgorgement, prejudgment interest and penalties.
The orders by the Court ends litigation commenced by the Commission on August 30, 1999, when it filed a complaint charging that the four defendants fleeced approximately 100 elderly individuals of some $2.5 million under the guise of providing estate and financial planning services. According to the Commission's complaint, the defendants solicited financial information about the senior citizens' assets and investments, then encouraged them to liquidate their legitimate investments, including bank certificates of deposit and other safe investments and invest the proceeds in promissory notes promising higher rates of return. The issuers of the notes, however, had no real business or did not exist. Instead, the defendants misappropriated most of the elderly investors' funds.