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


Litigation Release No. 19533 / January 20, 2006

Accounting and Auditing Enforcement
Release No. 2365 / January 20, 2006

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Eric Tyra, Scott Wynne, Peter Berman, and Scott Carey, Civil Action No. CV-04-P-1052-S (N.D. Al.).

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the Honorable R. David Proctor, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, entered a Final Judgment As To Defendant Scott Carey ("Carey"), enjoining him from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and from aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20 and 13a-1 thereunder. Carey consented to the entry of the judgment without admitting or denying any of the allegations of the Commission's Complaint. Carey was not ordered to pay a civil penalty based upon the representations in his sworn financial statements.

The Commission's Complaint, filed on May 21, 2004, alleged various fraudulent practices in connection with the financial statements of Just for Feet, Inc., a large shoe and sports apparel retailer formerly headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. During the relevant period, Carey was the Strategic Account Manager for the southeastern United States for Nike, Inc., a shoe and sportswear company. The Complaint alleged that in 1999, Carey signed confirmations which falsely represented that Nike owed various amounts of "co-op" credits to Just for Feet. The overstatement of income and assets resulting from this misconduct, and other misconduct in which Carey was not involved, was reflected on Just for Feet's financial statements included in its Form 10-K filed for fiscal year 1998, Forms 10-Q filed for the first and second quarters of fiscal year 1999, and in its registration statements on Forms S-8 and S-4 filed in May and June of 1999, respectively.

See also: L.R. 18139 (May 15, 2003); L.R. 18571 (February 6, 2004); L.R. 18575 (February 13, 2004); and L.R. 18731 (June 1, 2004); L.R. 19163 (March 31, 2005); and L.R. 19438 (October 20, 2005).



Modified: 01/20/2006