Future Vision Direct Marketing, Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 16387 / December 13, 1999

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. FUTURE VISION DIRECT MARKETING, INC., et al. , Civil Action No. 96-2107 (NHP) (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 1999)

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") today announced that, on December 3, 1999, Judge Nicholas H. Politan of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment and entered final judgments of permanent injunction and other relief against defendants Ronald H. Michel, Stephen Regen, William Richard Horne, Daniel Kelly, Joseph Glenski, James Barschow, and Frank Cardell. Michel, Regen, Horne, and Kelly promoted, and Glenski, Barschow, and Cardell telemarketed, two fraudulent schemes to sell to the public unregistered securities in companies that purportedly were to develop and operate wireless cable television systems in Tennessee and Washington State.

The Court ordered defendants Michel, Regen, Horne, and Kelly to disgorge, jointly and severally, $13,137,813.11, representing their unlawful profits from the fraudulent sale of investments in both schemes. The Court further ordered Michel, Horne, and Kelly each to pay a $500,000 civil penalty, and Regen to pay a $250,000 civil penalty. The Court also barred Michel, Horne, and Kelly from serving as officers or directors of any public company.

The Court ordered defendants Glenski and Barschow to disgorge, jointly and severally with defendant Bruce Schroeder (against whom the Commission obtained a default judgment in July 1999), $4,209,827.23, representing their unlawful profits from the frauds and ordered Glenski and Barschow each to pay a $500,000 civil penalty. Cardell was ordered to disgorge $48,075 in illicit profits and pay a $250,000 civil penalty.

The Court permanently enjoined each of the defendants from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 17(a), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, the Court enjoined all of the defendants except Regen from future violations of the securities registration provisions, Securities Act Sections 5(a) and 5(c), and the broker-dealer registration provisions, Exchange Act Section 15(c).

The Commission's action is still pending with respect to three corporate defendants, as well as relief defendant Bellette Hoffman.

The Commission wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey and the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the investigation of this matter.

See also Litigation Release No. 14903 (May 7, 1996).