U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Litigation Release No. 17429 / March 21, 2002
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Saint James Asset Management, Inc. and John Raymond Linney Clain, Defendants and Clain Family Corporation, Relief Defendant, Civil Action Number 1:02-CV-426 (N.D. Ga.)
Georgia Investment Adviser and Its Controlling Shareholder Permanently Enjoined from Fraudulent Activities
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced today that on March 11, 2002, the Honorable Robert L. Vining of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered orders of permanent injunction and other relief against John Raymond Linney Clain ("Clain") and his investment adviser firm, Saint James Asset Management, Inc. ("St. James"), both of Alpharetta, Georgia. Clain and St. James were ordered to pay disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and civil penalties in amounts to be resolved upon motion of the Commission at a later date. Relief defendant Clain Family Corporation was ordered to pay disgorgement in an amount to be resolved upon motion of the Commission at a later date. Clain and St. James consented to the entry of the orders without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint.
The complaint alleged that Clain and Saint James obtained over $960,000 from sixteen clients between January 1998 and October 2000 by misrepresenting that the clients' money would be used to purchase various securities. Without the clients' knowledge or permission, Clain used the money primarily to fund the operations for an Augusta, Georgia company in which Clain had an interest, Alternate Energy Resources, Inc. The complaint also alleged that Clain used misappropriated funds to purchase two cars and a diamond ring, and to pay the mortgage on his house. Clain Family Corporation, which is controlled by Clain, owns one of the cars. The complaint also alleged that the defendants' misconduct included providing clients with materially false and misleading periodic account statements that represented falsely that they had bought specific securities for the clients, when in fact they had not.
Judge Vining's orders permanently enjoined Clain and Saint James from further violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
See also: L.R. 17363 (February 15, 2002)