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

Before the

May 17, 2004

File No. 3-11491

In the Matter of



ACT OF 1934


The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against Larry A. Stockett ("Respondent" or "Stockett").


After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that:

A. Respondent Stockett, age 57, is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada. Between 1996 and at least July 2002, he was the sole officer and director of Hightec, Inc. ("Hightec").

B. Hightec is a former Delaware corporation whose common stock was registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act between July 1996 and July 19, 2002, and therefore had continuing reporting obligations during that period. However, it had not filed any periodic reports with the Commission since the filing of its Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 1996. On July 19, 2002, the registration of Hightec's common stock was revoked by default order In the Matter of Hightec, Inc., Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-10768.

C. On April 26, 2002, the Commission filed a complaint in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Larry A. Stockett, Civil No. CV-S-02-0607-PMP-LRL (D. Nevada). In its complaint, the Commission alleged, among other things, that from at least July 1999 through April 2002, Stockett prepared and disseminated numerous materially false statements about Hightec in press releases, an Internet website, Internet message boards, television infomercials and in offering brochures sent directly to prospective investors. According to the complaint, these false statements concerned, among other things, the assets, legal status, business operations, financial condition and income prospects of Hightec, as well as Stockett's disciplinary history. The complaint also alleged that Stockett sold thousands of shares of restricted Hightec stock in unregistered transactions during dissemination of the false statements. According to the complaint, Stockett also failed to file mandatory periodic and current reports with the Commission on behalf of Hightec since late 1996.

D. On March 4, 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada entered a final judgment permanently enjoining Stockett from violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended [15 U.S.C. 77e(a) and 77e(c)], and Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(d) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78m(a), 78m(d) and 78p(a)] and Rules 10b-5, 12b-25, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, 13d-1, 13d-2, 16a-2 and 16a-3 thereunder [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, 240.12b-25, 240.13a-1, 240.13a-11, 240.13a-13, 240.13d-1, 240.13d-2, 240.16a-2 and 240.16a-3].

E. From at least July 1999 through April 2002, Hightec common stock was a penny stock. During the same period, Stockett participated in an offering of Hightec stock and therefore participated in an offering of a penny stock.


In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commission deems it necessary and appropriate in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be instituted to determine:

A. Whether the allegations set forth in Section II are true and, in connection therewith, to afford Respondent an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations; and

B. Whether a penny stock bar is appropriate in the public interest against Respondent pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act.


IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on the questions set forth in Section III hereof shall be convened at a time and place to be fixed, and before an Administrative Law Judge to be designated by further order as provided by Rule 200 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 201.200.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an Answer to the allegations contained in this Order within twenty (20) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule 220 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 201.220.

If Respondent fails to file the directed answer, or fails to appear at a hearing after being duly notified, the Respondent may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be determined against him upon consideration of this Order, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true as provided by Rules 155(a), 220(f), and 310 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. 201.155(a), 201.220(f) and 201.310.

This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondent personally or by certified mail.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial decision no later than 210 days from the date of service of this Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.

In the absence of an appropriate waiver, no officer or employee of the Commission engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in this or any factually related proceeding will be permitted to participate or advise in the decision of this matter, except as witness or counsel in proceedings held pursuant to notice. Since this proceeding is not "rule making" within the meaning of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not deemed subject to the provisions of Section 553 delaying the effective date of any final Commission action.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Jonathan G. Katz



Modified: 05/17/2004