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

Before the

Release No. 49504 / March 30, 2004

FILE NO. 3-11385

In the Matter of



The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) initiated this proceeding, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), on January 29, 2004, with an Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP). The Division of Enforcement subsequently informed the undersigned that it is seeking to bar Mark D. Deyak (Deyak) from being associated with a broker or dealer. (Letter of March 29, 2004.) The OIP was served on Deyak on February 29, 2004. Deyak's Answer was due on March 22, 2004. See 17 C.F.R. 201.160(a), .220(b). Deyak has not filed an Answer and, thus, he is in default. See 17 C.F.R. 201.155(a), .220(f).

As authorized under Rule 155(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 201.155(a), I find the following allegations in the OIP to be true:

Deyak was a registered representative associated with American Investment Services, Inc. (American Investment), from October 1998 until December 2001. During that period, Deyak managed American Investment's two-man Rocky Point, New York office. Deyak holds Series 4, 7, 24, and 63 licenses. He is not presently employed in the brokerage industry. Deyak is 41 years old and resides in Rocky Point, New York.

On July 11, 2003, a final judgment was entered by default against Deyak in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 15(a), and 15(c) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Deyak was also ordered to pay disgorgement of $184,500, plus prejudgment interest, and a $120,000 civil penalty. SEC v. Cummings, Civil Action No. C2 02 629.

The Commission's complaint alleged that Paramount Financial Partners, Inc. (Paramount), through Von C. Cummings (Cummings) and others, falsely represented to investors that it was a hedge fund that generated large returns for clients through the mid-to-late 1990s. In fact, Paramount was not a hedge fund, and neither Paramount nor Cummings bought and sold securities for clients' accounts. Investors paid at least $14.2 million total directly to Paramount, from at least May 2000 through approximately the spring of 2001. Beginning in May 2000, at Cummings's direction, those funds were primarily deposited in several bank and brokerage accounts in Paramount's name. At Cummings's direction, the vast majority of those funds were used to repay previous Paramount investors. Additionally, at least $2 million was paid to Cummings or used to pay his personal and business expenses. In the fall of 2000, Deyak solicited and/or referred clients to participate in Paramount investments. After conducting very little, if any, due diligence, Deyak misrepresented to clients and investors that Cummings managed a hedge fund with assets between $12 and $15 million, that he had participated in deals with Cummings in the past, and that Cummings's operations were legitimate. Deyak did not disclose to his registered broker-dealer employer that he had solicited investors for Paramount in exchange for fees and commissions. Finally, the complaint alleged that Cummings paid Deyak approximately $184,500 for soliciting and inducing clients and others to invest in the Paramount scheme.

In light of the foregoing, I find that it is in the public interest to bar Deyak from associating with any broker or dealer.


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

Robert G. Mahony
Administrative Law Judge



Modified: 03/30/2004