UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 50027 / July 15, 2004
Admin. Proc. File No. 3-11549
In the Matter of Bruce H. Barbers and Craig H. Colwell
On July 15, 2004, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings and Notice of Hearing Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against Bruce H. Barbers and Craig H. Colwell. In the Order, the Division of Enforcement alleges that both Respondents pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire, mail and securities fraud, and that judgments of conviction have been entered against them. See United States v. Bruce H. Barbers, Criminal Case No. 00CR20028-01-ALL, (W.D. TN, Memphis Division 2000), and United States v. Craig H. Colwell, Criminal Case No. 00-20026-01-D, (W.D. TN, Memphis Division 2000).
In the criminal cases, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee alleged, in the indictment against Barbers and the information against Colwell, that the Respondents, while employed as stockbrokers, participated in a conspiracy with David I. Namer to commit wire, mail and securities fraud, by accepting money from Namer as an incentive to sell securities provided by Namer and concealed the payments from customers, brokers and dealers to prevent them from knowing the origin and source of the payments. The indictment alleged and the plea agreement admitted that Barbers participated in the conspiracy between October 1995 and November 1996, while employed as a registered representative of Meyers Pollack Robbins, Inc. in New York City, then a registered broker-dealer. The information alleged and the plea agreement admitted that Colwell participated in the conspiracy between January 1994 and October 1996, while employed as a registered representative and a Managing Director of Sutter Securities, Inc., a registered broker-dealer in San Francisco, California. See United States v. David I. Namer, Criminal Case No.00-20176-Ml (W.D.TN) Litigation Releases Nos. 17696 and 18132.
A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are true, to provide the Respondents an opportunity to dispute these allegations, and to determine what sanctions, if any, are appropriate and in the public interest.
The Commission directed that an administrative law judge shall issue an initial decision in this matter within 210 days from the date of service of the Order Instituting Proceedings.
See also the Order in this matter