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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 16989 / May 7, 2001

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Internet Telecommunications Albany System SMR, et al., Civil Action No. 1:99CV00539 (CKK) (D.D.C.)

COURT ENTERS FINAL JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AGAINST ONE TOUCH MARKETING, INC. IN SPECIALIZED MOBILE RADIO FRAUD

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on April 30, 2001, the Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, granted the Commission's application for a default judgment against defendant One Touch Marketing, Inc. (OTM). The final judgment orders OTM to pay $43,951 disgorgement, $30,485 prejudgment interest and a $43,951 penalty. The judgment against OTM holds OTM jointly and severally liable with defendant Richard Parnell, who controlled OTM and was previously enjoined in the case and ordered to pay these amounts of disgorgement, interest and penalty. The Court found that the disgorgement amount represented the amount of investor funds received by OTM as a result of its unlawful conduct.

According to the complaint, which was filed on March 2, 1999, OTM and other defendants violated various registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with the offer and sale to the public of securities designated as partnership units in three general partnerships formed to develop specialized mobile radio systems in Albany, New York, Reno, Nevada and Anchorage, Alaska. The complaint alleges that OTM and Parnell, among others, functioned as brokers in selling the unregistered securities without first having registered as such as required by applicable securities laws. On April 30, the Court also enjoined OTM from violating the securities registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act. Further, the Court enjoined OTM from violating the broker-dealer registration provisions of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. OTM failed to answer, plead or otherwise respond to the Commission's complaint.

See also Litigation Release Nos. 16073 (March 2, 1999), 16592 (June 15, 2000), 16660 (August 21, 2000) and 16666 (August 29, 2000).

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16989.htm

Modified:05/07/2001