Litigation Release No. 18089 / April 14, 2003
SEC v. American Prometheus Corp., James P. Norville and Mabel R. Norville, Civ. Action No. 02-N-1586 (MJW) (District of Colorado)
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on April 7, 2003, U. S. District Judge Edward Nottingham entered permanent injunctions, by consent, against American Prometheus Corp., James P. Norville and Mabel R. Norville, all of Central City, Colorado, for violations of the antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws. American Prometheus was purportedly in the business of developing a hotel and casino in Central City. James Norville was the company's former president and director, and his wife, Mabel Norville, is a director and secretary of the company.
The complaint alleged that between April 1997 and April 2000, the Norvilles offered more than $3.6 million in securities and raised approximately $1.1 million from 79 investors nationwide through a series of five American Prometheus offerings and through the Norvilles' sale of their own shares of American Prometheus stock. The complaint claimed that the Norvilles failed to disclose criminal securities fraud charges pending against James Norville relating to one of the Norvilles' previous companies and his subsequent guilty plea to securities fraud. It was also alleged that the Norvilles misappropriated investor funds for their personal use. Finally, the complaint contended that American Prometheus' securities offerings and the Norvilles' sale of their own American Prometheus stock were not registered.
American Prometheus and the Norvilles were enjoined from future violation of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Norvilles were also barred from acting as officers or directors of any publicly held company and from participating in any offering of penny stock. The order requires payment of disgorgement of $581,277 plus prejudgment interest from the Norvilles, but payment was waived based upon their sworn financial statements. Further, no civil money penalty was imposed on the Norvilles based upon their sworn financial statements
See also, L.R. 17682 (August 15, 2002)