 |
Home | Previous Page | |
|
||
 |
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
WAYNE M. CARLIN (WC-2114)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission"), for its complaint against defendants Platinum Investment Corporation ("Platinum"), Platinum Investment Holding Corp. ("PIHC"), Lee Antonucci ("L. Antonucci"), Andrew Antonucci ("A. Antonucci"), Marcos Martinez ("Martinez"), James Frace ("Frace"), and Mathew Beaulieu ("Beaulieu") (collectively the "Defendants"), alleges as follows: SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 1. The Commission brings this action to stop a brazen securities fraud perpetrated by the Defendants. Since at least August 2001, Platinum, a registered broker-dealer, and the other defendants have fraudulently obtained over $1.5 million from at least 56 investors by making material misrepresentations in multiple unregistered stock offerings purporting to raise money for PIHC's business operations and by selling interests in New Focus Capital Partners ("New Focus"), a phony hedge fund purportedly generating double-digit returns using a proprietary "momentum" trading system owned by PIHC, IntelliTrend XLTM ("IntelliTrend"). In addition to cold-calling its own customers, Platinum used the internet to solicit countless other members of the investing public on websites controlled by, among other principals of Platinum, defendant L. Antonucci. In an offering memorandum given to some investors, PIHC is portrayed as a "financial service holding corporation" that plans "to offer a one-stop supermarket" of financial products by acquiring a "minority NASD subsidiary." L. Antonucci and Platinum brokers -- including A. Antonucci, Martinez, and Frace -- further claim that PIHC is on the verge of becoming a public company whose stock is guaranteed to trade as high as $10 on the secondary market. The Defendants' claims are all completely false, because PIHC and New Focus are nothing more than vehicles for fleecing investors. 2. In the offering memorandum, unsolicited telephone calls to investors and correspondence with those investors, the Defendants knowingly misrepresent the identity of PIHC's officers and directors, the likelihood of PIHC becoming a publicly traded company, the prospects for an active secondary trading market for PIHC stock, the safety of the investment, PIHC's use of the offering proceeds, IntelliTrend's track record, and other material facts. The offering memorandum falsely states that a Citicorp vice president with over 14 years of experience in the securities industry is the "President, Chief Executive Officer, and Treasurer; [and] Chairman of the Board of Directors" of PIHC. The named individual has never been an officer or director of PIHC and has nothing at all to do with PIHC. The offering memorandum also states that PIHC is "negotiating to merge with one of several companies" whose stock is "listed on either the NASDAQ or American stock exchange," but PIHC has never had merger discussions with a public company whose stock is traded on the NASDAQ or the American Stock Exchange ("AMEX"). L. Antonucci, the only other PIHC officer named in the offering documents, has also written letters to investors falsely stating that PIHC will be "going public" within anywhere from 14 to 45 days. A. Antonucci, Martinez, and Frace have made similar false statements to investors and, in some cases, have guaranteed that investors will be able to sell their PIHC stock into the public market following PIHC's "IPO" at a hefty profit -- as much as 900 percent in one instance. All these statements are false and misleading because, as of today, PIHC has not filed a registration statement or taken any other steps requisite to undertaking a lawful public offering. In fact, these four individual defendants continue to tell investors that PIHC is on the verge of an IPO even though the IPO target dates they fed to earlier investors came and went without a public offering. 3. While the offering memorandum states that the PIHC offering proceeds will be used to fund PIHC's business operations, Platinum has taken immediate custody of the investor funds and, in some cases, diverted the proceeds into an account held in the name of New Focus. The New Focus account is also a beneficiary of misrepresentations about IntelliTrend, which the PIHC offering memorandum claims is a "customized equity-trading program" that "has demonstrated its ability since its inception in July 2001 to produce returns in excess of 5% per month." Although New Focus purportedly uses IntelliTrend with great success, the truth is that no one has ever generated any actual returns at all using IntelliTrend. Nevertheless, Platinum and defendant Beaulieu have told investors that New Focus uses a computer trading program with a proven track record when, in fact, both the trading program and New Focus are a sham. 4. The Defendants' PIHC stock offerings were not registered with the Commission and did not qualify for any exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"). Platinum also failed to provide the Commission with numerous records that registered broker-dealers are required to maintain and failed to give each PIHC investor the written disclosures required for "penny stock" transactions of the type that occurred here. 5. The Defendants, directly or indirectly, are engaging, have engaged, and are about to engage, in violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c), 77q(a), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. §78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5. In addition, Platinum, directly or indirectly, is engaging, has engaged, and is about to engage, in violations of Section 17(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78q(b), and Rule 15g-9, 17 C.F.R. §240.15g-9. 6. Unless the Defendants are temporarily restrained and preliminarily and permanently enjoined, they will continue to engage in the transactions, acts, practices and courses of business alleged herein, and in transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business of a similar type and object. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. The Commission brings this action pursuant to authority conferred by Section 20(b) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(b), and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d), seeking to temporarily restrain, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from engaging in the wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint. The Commission also seeks a final judgment ordering the Defendants to disgorge their ill-gotten gains and to pay prejudgment interest thereon, and ordering the Defendants to pay civil money penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d). The Commission also seeks equitable relief while this action is pending, including an order (a) freezing the Defendants' assets; (b) directing the Defendants to provide an accounting; and (c) providing for expedited discovery and preventing the destruction of documents. 8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action, and venue lies in this District, pursuant to Sections 20(b) and 22(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§77t(b), 77v(a), and Sections 21(d), 21(e) and 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§77u(d), 77u(e) and 78aa. 9. The Defendants, directly and indirectly, singly or in concert, have made use of the means and instrumentalities of transportation or communication in, or the instrumentalities of, interstate commerce, or of the mails, in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this complaint. Platinum maintains an office and transacts business in the Southern District of New York. THE DEFENDANTS 10. Platinum is a broker-dealer that has been registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act since April 2001. Platinum maintains offices in Rochester, New York, Fort Lauderdale, Florida and New York, New York. Platinum was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada in August 2000. 11. PIHC was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada in July 2001. PIHC's purported business address and phone number are identical to the address and phone number of Platinum's Rochester, New York office. Other than proceeds of the fraudulent offerings involved in this action, PIHC has virtually no assets, and little or no operating revenue. 12. L. Antonucci, age 32, resides in Hilton, New York and is a director and majority shareholder of Platinum through a real estate company he controls named RDC Development, Inc. In PIHC's offering memoranda dated August 31, 2001 ("August 2001 Offering Memorandum") and January 15, 2002 ("January 2002 Offering Memorandum"), he is identified as Vice-President, Secretary and a Director of PIHC. 13. A. Antonucci, age 30, resides in Hilton, New York and is associated with Platinum and holds Series 4, 7, 24 and 63 securities licenses. In PIHC's July 2001 articles of incorporation, he is identified as President and Treasurer of PIHC. [L. Antonucci, A. Antonucci and the president of Platinum are all brothers.] 14. Martinez, age 29, is the branch manager and registered principal of Platinum's Fort Lauderdale, Florida office. He holds series 7, 24, 31, 63, and 65 securities licenses. 15. Frace, age 33, resides in Sunrise, Florida and is a registered representative associated with Platinum in the Fort Lauderdale, Florida office. He holds Series 7 and 63 securities licenses. 16. Beaulieu, age 34, resides in Rochester, New York and is a registered representative associated with Platinum in the Rochester, New York office. He holds Series 7, 24 and 63 securities licenses. OTHER RELEVANT ENTITY 17. New Focus is the name of a purported partnership that supposedly manages an investment fund that uses IntelliTrend to make trading decisions. Account statements received by Platinum customers who allegedly invested in a New Focus fund list New Focus's address as 2358 W. Ridge Road, Rochester, New York. The building located at this address is a residential structure housing a law office occupied by an attorney who represents Platinum, its president and other Antonucci businesses. There is no telephone number listed for New Focus in the Rochester or any other telephone directory. THE DEFENDANTS' FRAUDULENT OFFER AND SALE OF UNREGISTERED PIHC SECURITIES The Defendants' Unregistered Stock Offerings 18. From August 2001 through the present, the Defendants have offered and sold, without ever filing a registration statement with the Commission, over $1.3 million of PIHC stock to at least 50 investors in at least fourteen different states, including New York. The Defendants conducted this unregistered stock offering using the internet, the telephone and mail delivery services. 19. Both PIHC and Platinum posted information promoting the PIHC offerings on their respective websites. The PIHC website is registered to Platinum, and the Platinum website is registered to B.T.I. of Rochester, Inc., a corporation controlled by L. Antonucci's brother. In conjunction with the unregistered stock offerings described above in paragraph 18, PIHC[, Platinum and/or L. Antonucci] also prepared and distributed at least two offering memoranda to promote the sale of PIHC stock to prospective investors. 20. The August 2001 Offering Memorandum describes a $10 million unit offering consisting of common stock at $1 per share, and the January 2002 Offering Memorandum describes a $1 million offering unit offering consisting of common stock at $1 per share. The Defendants' Material Misrepresentations 21. In cold calls, investor correspondence, the offering memoranda, and internet advertising, the Defendants have knowingly misrepresented that: (a) an initial public offering ("IPO") of PIHC stock, or another transaction by which PIHC would become a public company, is imminent; (b) PIHC stock will sell in the secondary market for $3 to$10 per share; (c) an experienced financial services executive runs PIHC; (d) PIHC owns a proprietary computer trading program with a successful track record; and (e) the offering proceeds will be used to fund PIHC's business activities. Misrepresentations About The Likelihood of PHIC Becoming A Public Company 22. The Defendants have materially misled prospective investors about the likelihood of PIHC becoming a public company by misrepresenting, among other things, that PIHC was on the verge of conducting an IPO or concluding a merger with an existing public company whose stock trades on the NASDAQ or the AMEX. 23. In the January 2002 Offering Memorandum, PIHC, L. Antonucci and Platinum falsely state that PIHC "is presently negotiating to merge with one of several companies which will provide it with the status of being a public company listed on either the NASDAQ or American stock exchange." In addition, L. Antonucci wrote letters directly to prospective purchasers of PIHC stock stating that PIHC would soon become a public company. For example, on May 14, 2002, he wrote that "within the next 30-45 days, [PIHC] will be going public." Although no such transaction occurred in the interim, he wrote again on June 27, 2002 that PIHC "is looking to be public in the next 14-21 days." 24. A. Antonucci made misstatements about an imminent IPO over the telephone to prospective purchasers. For example, in February 2002, he told an investor that PIHC would "go public" within eight to ten weeks. A. Antonucci also told this investor that the transaction was an "IPO" and that the stock would trade under the symbol "PLAT." When the investor called Platinum in late June to find out why the IPO had not occurred, A. Antonucci told him that Platinum was holding off due to current market conditions, but that PIHC would go public the week of July 15, 2002. 25. Martinez made misstatements about an imminent IPO over the telephone and in writing to prospective purchasers. For example: (a) In February 2002, Martinez told a prospective purchaser that PIHC was scheduled to complete an IPO in approximately one month, and that PIHC shares would "open up at $4.00 to $5.00 per share." On July 3, 2002, Martinez assured the investor that PIHC would go public within two weeks. (b) In April 2002, Martinez an told an investor that a PIHC "IPO" would occur within 45 days. On July 15, 2002, Martinez told this investor that Platinum would "go public" by July 19, 2002. (c) In April 2002, Martinez told an investor that PIHC would go public within 60 days and guaranteed that the investor would then immediately double or triple his money. In a letter dated May 17, 2002, Martinez guaranteed this investor that his investment would be refunded "if we do not go public within 30-45 days." When the investor called Martinez on July 16, 2002 to take him up on his guarantee, Martinez stated that PIHC would definitely go public within 7-10 days at $4.00 to $5.00 per share and offered to sell him what Martinez claimed were the last two PIHC units for $20,000. 26. Frace made misstatements about an imminent IPO over the telephone to prospective purchasers. For example, Frace told one investor in May 2002 that an "IPO" of PIHC would occur in June 2002. Frace solicited this investor again in June 2002 for an additional purchase. When the investor asked why the IPO had not yet occurred, Frace told him the delay was caused by "SEC problems" and reassured him that "we're not far from the IPO" and that it would happen "anytime now." This investor "purchased" an additional $20,000 of PIHC stock. 27. The representations described in paragraphs 22-26 are materially false and misleading because, among other reasons, PIHC has not: (i) filed a registration statement with the Commission; (ii) prepared a draft prospectus; (ii) had any communications with the Commission's Division of Corporation Finance concerning an IPO; (iii) hired underwriters, auditors or other professionals for an IPO; (iv) obtained audited financial statements; or (v) had merger discussions with a NASDAQ or Amex company. Platinum and PIHC failed to provide any evidence in response to the Commission's investigative requests that (i) an IPO, merger or other transaction through which PIHC's stock would become publicly traded is imminent, or even feasible; or (ii) PIHC has taken any meaningful steps to prepare for an initial public offering, such as communications with prospective underwriters, counsel, or auditors. In addition, absent acceleration by the Commission, it takes at least 20 days for a registration statement to become effective. Misrepresentations About Secondary Market Profits 28. A. Antonucci, Martinez and Frace also made baseless, and often contradictory, secondary market price projections and profit guarantees in conjunction with their misrepresentations about the likelihood of PIHC conducting an IPO. 29. A. Antonucci, for example, told investors that when PIHC went public, the offering price would be at least $3.00 to $4.00 per share. 30. As described above in paragraph 25(c), Martinez told one investor that through the IPO, he was guaranteed to double his money in 60 days. Martinez later told this same investor that he should purchase additional shares, because PIHC would now be going public at $10 per share and the investor would quadruple his profit. During this same time period, Martinez told two other investors that PIHC would go public at $4.00 to $5.00 per share. 31. Frace, for example, told an investor that trading in PIHC stock would eventually open at $4.00 to $7.00 per share. After this investor purchased 40,000 PIHC shares at $1.00 per share, Frace told him that he had already made money because the stock was now selling at $2.00 per share. 32. The representations described in paragraphs 28-31 are materially false and misleading for the reasons set forth in paragraph 27, and because: (i) PIHC has virtually no assets other than proceeds of the fraudulent offerings involved in this action, and little or no operating revenue; (ii) the price projections lacked a factual basis and were inherently arbitrary; and (iii) the disparity among the price projections given to different investors indicates that the figures were fabricated. Misrepresentations About PIHC Management 33. In both the August 2001 and January 2002 versions of the PIHC offering memorandum, PIHC, L. Antonucci and Platinum represent that a named financial services executive at Citicorp Investment Services with over fourteen of experience in the securities industry is the "President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer, Chairman of the Board of Directors" of PIHC. This same individual is also named as PIHC's CEO in material promoting the PIHC stock offering posted on the internet at www.biz-angels.com. 34. The representations described in paragraph 33 are materially false and misleading because the named individual has never: (i) been an officer or director of PIHC; (ii) had anything to do with PIHC; and (iii) given anyone permission to use her name in connection with PIHC. On July 25, 2002, this individual's lawyer demanded in writing that PIHC immediately correct these misstatements and explain why they were made. PIHC has yet to do so. Misrepresentations About PIHC's Proprietary Trading Program 35. In the January 15, 2002 Offering Memorandum, PIHC, L. Antonucci and Platinum represent that: (i) PIHC "has developed the IntelliTrend XLTM electronic trading program, a customized equity-trading program designed to effectively capitalize upon momentum in individual equities"; (ii) "In spite of the challenging conditions in today's market . . ., [IntelliTrend] has demonstrated its ability since its inception in July 2001 to produce returns in excess of 5% per month"; and (iii) IntelliTrend "is currently licensed to two financial service companies which produce revenues on a monthly basis and negotiations are underway for a significant expansion of its commercial licensing program." 36. In an internet website located at www.intellitrendxl.com and controlled by Platinum, these same defendants also claim that "a professionally managed portfolio utilizing the IntelliTrendXL system would have generated a 55% gain over the last six months." 37. The representations described in paragraphs 35 and 36 are materially false and misleading because, among other reasons, Platinum and PIHC have failed to provide any evidence in response to the Commission's investigative requests that: (i) IntelliTrend has a proven track record consistent with these defendants' outlandish claims; (ii) IntelliTrend is generating revenue for PIHC; (iii) PIHC has actually been used by third parties to trade stock; or (iv) IntelliTrend even exists. Misrepresentations About PIHC's Use Of The Offering Proceeds 38. PIHC, L. Antonucci and Platinum have materially misled prospective investors by misrepresenting what PIHC will do with the proceeds of the stock offerings. In both versions of the PIHC offering memorandum, PIHC, L. Antonucci and Platinum represent that PIHC investor funds will be used to acquire a minority interest in Platinum, for working capital and other operational expenses, and for IntelliTrend research and development. 39. The representations described above in paragraph 38 are materially false and misleading because, among other reasons: (a) None of the investors' money has been used to buy an interest in Platinum, improve IntelliTrend or for any other legitimate corporate purpose; (b) Platinum took immediate custody of the offering proceeds and transferred some of the proceeds to New Focus bank account by endorsing investor checks made payable to "Platinum Investment Holding Corp." over to New Focus; and (c) None of the uses of investor funds described above were disclosed to prospective PIHC investors. THE NEW FOCUS FRAUD 40. Platinum brokers are also fraudulently soliciting investors to put their money into a purported New Focus investment fund by misrepresenting the fund's track record. Since August 2001, at least 6 investors have invested approximately $183,000 to acquire an interest in the New Focus fund, which is administered by Platinum and supposedly uses IntelliTrendXLTM to make trading decisions. 41. Defendant Beaulieu has told investors over the telephone that New Focus is a good investment because it uses a computerized trading program with a proven track record of success. Consistent with the unsupported statements made about IntelliTrendXLTM in PIHC's offering memorandum, Beaulieu told one investor that an investment in New Focus would generate monthly returns of 2% to 8%. Beaulieu told another investor that the computer program used by New Focus had been tested and generated a 10% return in a one-month trial period, even though New Focus was only aiming for 5% monthly returns. 42. The representations described above in paragraph 41 are materially false and misleading for the reasons set forth above in paragraphs 17, 35-37, and because, among other reasons, Platinum has produced no evidence in response to the Commission's investigative requests that: (i) New Focus generated the monthly returns described above in paragraph 41; or (ii) any trades purportedly underlying these return rates were actually made. 43. In the New Focus account statements received by Beaulieu's customers from Platinum, Beaulieu and Platinum also misrepresent the actual returns purportedly earned by the customer and, as a result, the account statements are fabricated documents. For example, certain statements cover periods as broad as September 1, 2001 through May 15, 2002 and, without any trade detail or other itemization, recite blanket returns as high as nineteen percent. These phony account statements indicate that New Focus is a sham, and that Platinum is simply stealing the investors' money. The Defendants' Knowledge That The Representations Were False And Misleading 44. The Defendants knew that the representations described above in paragraphs 21-43 are false and misleading because, in addition to the facts described in those paragraphs and paragraphs 10-16: (a) L. Antonucci owns at least a 75% equity interest in Platinum and is one of, at most, only two officers or even identified employees of PIHC. Accordingly, L. Antonucci knows that (i) PIHC did not file a registration statement; (ii) PIHC is not otherwise ready to conduct an IPO; (iii) PIHC has not taken the requisite steps to become a publicly traded company by means of merger with a company whose stock is traded on the NASDAQ or AMEX; the (iv) Citicorp executive named in the offering memoranda and website is not PIHC's Chairman and CEO; (v) IntelliTrend has no proven track record; and (vi) the PIHC offering proceeds are not all reaching PIHC. (b) A. Antonucci, Martinez and Frace are securities professionals who continued to tell investors that PIHC is on the verge of an IPO even though the IPO target dates they stated to earlier investors came and went without any public offering. Since PIHC never even filed a registration statement, none of them could have a reasonable basis for believing that an IPO was imminent or that PIHC would soon become a public company. (c) When A. Antonucci, Martinez and Frace made secondary market price predictions and guarantees to investors, PIHC was a corporation in existence for less than a year with little or no assets or revenue and shared office space with their employer; accordingly, as securities professionals, they could not have a reasonable basis for those statements. (d) As a securities professional, Beaulieu could not have a reasonable basis for promising monthly returns of 5% or more to New Focus investors when there was no documentation showing that IntelliTrend had actually generated such returns. Since Beaulieu is identified as the account representative on the New Focus customer account statements posting 19% returns, he could not have a reasonable basis for believing that those customers were really earning such returns. (e) Although the Commission's broker-dealer inspection staff began an on site examination of Platinum in April 2002 and requested documents that a broker-dealer is required to keep and provide to the Commission on request, Platinum refuses to produce numerous such documents about, inter alia, the PIHC offerings and Platinum brokers, including those named as defendants, continue soliciting additional PIHC stock purchases and deceiving investors. PIHC stock sales have occurred as recently as July 19, 2002. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,
45. The Commission repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 44 by reference as if fully set forth herein. 46. Defendants, directly and indirectly, singly and in concert, knowingly or recklessly, by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in, and the means or instrumentalities of, interstate commerce, or by the use of the mails, in the offer or sale, and in connection with the purchase or sale, of securities, have: (a) employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) obtained money or property by means of, or otherwise made untrue statements of material fact, or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and (c) engaged in transactions, acts, practices and courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of securities or other persons. 47. As part of and in furtherance of this violative conduct, the Defendants, directly or indirectly, made the representations and omitted to state the facts alleged above in paragraphs 1 through 3 and 21 through 43. 48. The false statements and omissions made by Defendants, more fully described above in paragraphs 1 through 3 and 21 through 43, were material. 49. The Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that these material misrepresentations, more fully described above in paragraphs 1 through 3 and 21 through 43, were false or misleading. 50. By reason of the acts, omissions, practices, and courses of business set forth in this complaint, the Defendants have violated, are violating, are about to violate, and, unless restrained and enjoined, will continue violating, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act
51. The Commission realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 44 by reference as if fully set forth herein. 52. Defendants Platinum, PIHC, L. Antonucci [and others?], directly and indirectly, singly and in concert, have made use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce, or of the mails, to offer and sell securities through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise when no registration statement has been filed or was in effect as to such securities and when no exemption from registration was available. 53. By reason of the foregoing, defendants Platinum, PIHC, L. Antonucci [and others?] violated, are violating, are about to violate, and, unless restrained and enjoined, will continue violating, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violations of Sections 17(b), 15(g)(2) and 15(g)(5)
54. The Commission realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 44 by reference as if fully set forth herein. 55. Platinum has failed to produce a variety of documents within the scope of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act, including investor checks and correspondence with customers. In addition, Platinum failed to provide all investors with the written information required by Rule 15g-9 for penny stock transactions. Under Rule 3a51-1 of the Exchange Act, PIHC is a penny stock, and the Rule 15g-9 disclosure requirements apply to the sales at issue here. Platinum was selling PIHC for $1 per share and none of the exemptions are available. 56. By reason of the foregoing, defendant Platinum violated, is violating, is about to violate, and, unless restrained and enjoined, will continue violating, Sections 17(b), 15(g)(2) and 15(g)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Rule 15g-9. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Commission respectfully requests that this Court issue: I. Orders temporarily and preliminarily, and Final Judgments permanently, restraining and enjoining each of the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys in-fact, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. II. Orders temporarily and preliminarily, and Final Judgments permanently, restraining and enjoining defendants Platinum, PIHC, L. Antonucci [and others?], their agents, servants, employees, attorneys in-fact, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act. III. Orders temporarily and preliminarily, and Final Judgments permanently, restraining and enjoining defendant Platinum, its agents, servants, employees, attorneys in-fact, and all persons in active concert or participation with it who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from violating Sections 17(b), 15(g)(2) and 15(g)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Rule 15g-9. IV. An Order directing that each of the Defendants' assets be frozen. V. An Order directing each of the Defendants to each file with this Court and serve upon the Commission, within five business days, or within such extension of time as the Commission agrees in writing or as otherwise ordered by the Court, verified written accountings, signed by each of them under penalty of perjury. VI. An Order permitting expedited discovery. VII. An Order enjoining and restraining each of the Defendants, and any person or entity acting at their direction or on their behalf, from destroying, altering, concealing, or otherwise interfering with the access of the Commission to relevant documents, books and records. VIII. A Final Judgment requiring each of the Defendants to disgorge their ill-gotten gains from the violative conduct alleged in this complaint, and to pay prejudgment interest thereon. IX. A Final Judgment imposing civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act against each of the Defendants. X. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. Dated: July _31_, 2002
Of Counsel: Edwin H. Nordlinger
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp17643.htm
|