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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Investment Advisers Act of 1940
Release No. 2260 / July 9, 2004

Administrative Proceeding
File No. 3-11467


In the Matter of

Joseph L. Norris and Mark G. Coleman,

Respondent.


:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AS TO MARK G. COLEMAN

I.

In these proceedings instituted on April 29, 2004, pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"), Respondent Mark G. Coleman ("Coleman") has submitted an Offer of Settlement ("Offer") which the Securities and Exchange Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purposes of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission or in which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the Commission's findings herein, except as to the jurisdiction of the Commission over him and over the subject matter of these proceedings, and the findings contained in paragraph II.2. below, which are admitted, Coleman consents to the entry of this Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions as to Mark G. Coleman ("Order"), as set forth below.

II.

On the basis of this Order and Coleman's Offer, the Commission finds that:

1. From January 1999 through at least July 2000, Coleman acted as a person associated with an investment adviser within the meaning of Sections 202(a)(17) and 203(f) of the Advisers Act in connection with his activities in association with Joseph L. Norris, Magellan Communications Group, LLC, and Northern Lights Financial, LLC.

2. On February 18, 2003, upon the Commission's motion for summary judgment, a final judgment was entered against Coleman, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b 5 thereunder, and Section 206 of the Advisers Act, in a civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. v. Joseph Lloyd Norris, et al., Docket No. CV-N-02-0112-DWH-VPC, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Reno Division.

3. The Commission's complaint alleged that, from July 1998 through 2000, Coleman and others raised approximately $8.5 million from more than thirty clients by promising to invest the money in offshore "trading programs" that would generate returns of four to seven percent per month, or the equivalent of 48 to 84 percent per year. The Complaint alleged that these "trading programs" had the characteristics typical of fraudulent "prime bank" schemes, which have been the subject of dozens of Commission enforcement actions over the past decade. The Complaint further alleged that Coleman and others lost approximately $6 million of their clients' funds in their attempts to invest in such "trading programs," then sent their clients fictitious account statements concealing the losses. The Complaint also alleges that Coleman continued to encourage clients and prospective clients to deposit money with him without disclosing the losses.

III.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanction specified in Coleman's Offer.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Advisers Act, that Mark G. Coleman be, and hereby is, barred from association with any investment adviser.

Any reapplication for association by the Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the satisfaction of any or all of the following: (a) any disgorgement ordered against the Respondent, whether or not the Commission has fully or partially waived payment of such disgorgement; (b) any arbitration award related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; (c) any self-regulatory organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; and (d) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order.

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

Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary

 

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/ia-2260.htm


Modified: 7/09/2004