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

Before the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release No. 48753 / November 6, 2003

Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Release No. 2191/November 6, 2003

Administrative Proceedings
File No. 3-11213

In the Matter of




The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) commenced this proceeding against Respondent Wendell D. Belden (Belden) on August 13, 2003, with an Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP). On September 8, 2003, the Division of Enforcement (Division) served the OIP upon Respondent Belden through his wife, Sandra Belden, at the Beldens' residence in Tulsa, Oklahoma. See 17 C.F.R. 201.141(a), .150(c)(1). Respondent Belden's answer was due on September 29, 2003. See 17 C.F.R. 201.160(a), .220(b). On October 3, 2003, a prehearing conference was held, at which the Division was present, but Respondent Belden was not. On October 21, 2003, the Division filed a motion for default against Respondent Belden.

On October 29, 2003, I ordered Respondent Belden to show cause by November 3, 2003, why he should not be held in default and why he should not be barred from association with any investment adviser or broker or dealer. On November 4, 2003, the Division renewed its motion for default. As of November 6, 2003, Respondent Belden has not filed an answer.

Respondent Belden has failed to show cause why he should not be held in default. Pursuant to Rules 155(a) and 220(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 201.155(a), .220(f), Respondent Belden is in default for failing to file an answer within twenty days after service of the OIP and for failing to appear at a prehearing conference. I find the following allegations in the OIP to be true:

On November 21, 2002, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma permanently enjoined Respondent Belden from violating and/or aiding and abetting violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 15b3-1 thereunder, and Sections 204, 206(1), 206(2), 206(4), and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rules 204-1(a)(2), 206(4)-4(a)(2), and 206(4)-4(c) thereunder. SEC v. Southmark Advisory, Inc., 02-CV-830-E. (Civil Action).

The Civil Action complaint alleged that from 1996 to 2002, Respondent Belden used Southmark Advisory, Inc., and Southmark, Inc., to defraud his predominantly elderly or retired clients by misleading them about their investment options and the security of their invested principal and by investing their money in a manner calculated to enrich himself at their expense. The complaint further alleged that, by way of this fraudulent scheme, Respondent Belden and others sold mutual fund shares worth at least $82,801,550, victimized at least 400 investors, and fraudulently earned at least $5 million in management fees and brokerage commissions. At the time of the misconduct alleged in the complaint, Respondent Belden was associated with Southmark Advisory, Inc., a registered investment adviser, and Southmark, Inc., a registered broker-dealer.

Based on the foregoing, I find that it is in the public interest to bar Respondent Belden from association with any investment adviser and any broker or dealer.

IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, that Wendell D. Belden is hereby BARRED from association with any investment adviser; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that Wendell D. Belden is hereby BARRED from association with any broker or dealer.

Lillian A. McEwen
Administrative Law Judge


Modified: 11/06/2003