 |
Home | Previous Page | |
|
||
 |
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") alleges: INTRODUCTION 1. The SEC brings this action to restrain and enjoin Defendants Mark David Shiner ("Shiner"), Leon Swichkow ("Swichkow"), Timothy Wetherald ("Wetherald") and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc. ("Telecom Advisory") from violating and continuing to violate the federal securities laws in connection with their ongoing, fraudulent, unregistered offer and sale of securities. Since at least February 2001 (and possibly earlier) through the present, Shiner, Swichkow, Wetherald and Telecom Advisory (collectively "Defendants") have raised at least $7.6 million from hundreds of investors by offering and selling unregistered securities in a series of Limited Liability Partnerships ("LLPs"). In each instance, the LLPs were ostensibly formed to operate competitive local telephone exchange carriers ("CLECs") in Western states where Qwest Communications was the dominant local telephone carrier. The six (6) LLPs were each structured into eighty "units," fifty voting and thirty non-voting, valued at $19, 975.00 per unit. The names of the six LLPs are: (1) Mile High Telecom Partners, LLP ("Mile High"), (2) Phone Company of Arizona, LLP ("Arizona"), (3) Washington Phone Company, LLP ("Washington"), (4) Minnesota Phone Company Financial Group, LLP ("Minnesota"), (5) Iowa-Nebraska Phone Company, LLP ("Iowa-Nebraska"), and (6) Oregon Phone Company Financial Group, LLP ("Oregon"). They were to be partnered with On Systems Technology, LLC ("On Systems"), a company represented by the Defendants as having the technical expertise to manage local telephone company operations. 2. Defendants used salesmen at Defendant Telecom Advisory, an unregistered broker-dealer, to market the LLPs and to make numerous material misrepresentations and omissions, including (1) providing unrealistic and baseless projections for rates of return and potential buyout offers, (2) failing to disclose that the majority of the invested funds were used to pay exorbitant commissions and "management fees" to entities controlled by the Defendants, including the Relief Defendants herein, (3) failing to disclose the interlocking relationships of the entities and individuals involved, (4) failing to disclose that certain of the "non-voting" units would be sold before the voting units had recouped their original investment from the profits of the telephone company, (5) failing to disclose the negative regulatory histories of Defendants Shiner, Swichkow and Wetherald, and (6) failing to disclose that neither Mile High Telecom, nor any of the other phone companies they established, were properly licensed to operate in the respective states they purported to serve. 3. At present, only one of the LLPs, Mile High, has any operating history, and its operations are unsuccessful, with the likelihood that the investors will not only lose all of their investment, but may also inherit the liabilities of Mile High LLP, which holds a 70% interest in an entity known as Mile High Telecom Joint Venture, which was put into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of Colorado on January 14, 2003. Unless immediately restrained and enjoined, Defendants will continue to defraud the investing public and place investor funds in serious risk of diversion and theft. DEFENDANTS 4. Defendant Marc David Shiner ("Shiner"), age 58, is a resident of Boca Raton, Florida. He is the Secretary of Defendant Telecom Advisory, as well as Relief Defendants Equity Service and USA Media. On information and belief, he had an ownership interest in On Systems, and performed his consulting work to the LLPs through Relief Defendant Marketing Media, Inc. In 1986, the SEC barred Shiner from association with a broker or dealer, investment company, investment adviser or municipal securities dealer for five years for his failure to disclose a 1984 conviction in Massachusetts for insurance fraud, larceny and attempted larceny (In the Matter of Marc D. Shiner, Barry L. King, Wellesley Financial Management Services, Inc., Admin. Proc. File. 3-6759, Rel. No. 34-23862 (Dec. 3, 1986)). Shiner has not reapplied to become associated with a broker or dealer. In 1998, while involved in promoting electric power partnerships in a similar scheme to this one, Shiner was convicted of federal tax evasion, and served four months in prison and four months of house arrest. In March of 2002, the SEC sued Shiner in the Southern District of Florida, alleging that he defrauded investors in the offer and sale of those electric power partnerships. (SEC v. Grabarnick, et al, Case No.02-CV-20875(JAL)). 5. Defendant Leon Swichkow ("Swichkow"), age 58, is a resident of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He is President of Defendant Telecom Advisory, as well as Relief Defendants Equity Service and USA Media. On information and belief, he had an ownership interest in On Systems. In 1995, Swichkow paid a $10,000 civil penalty in settlement of allegations that he violated the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC")'s Franchise Rule by failing to supply potential investors both pre-sale disclosures concerning a business opportunities he was selling as well as supporting documentation for claimed earnings. Swichkow is prohibited by the settlement from violating the Franchise Rule and from making any false statements or misrepresenting material aspects of any business venture he offers. (United States v. America's Radio Transmitter, Ltd.Case No. 95-8428-CIV-King (S.D.Fla., July 10, 1995)). 6. Defendant Timothy Wetherald ("Wetherald"), age 43, is a resident of Denver, Colorado. He is the president, part owner, and controls On Systems. Wetherald was enjoined from engaging in trade or commerce related to the provision of telecommunications services by the Attorney General of Oregon in 1991. He was also sued for a similar injunction by the State of Washington in 1994, and entered into a consent decree. (State of Washington v. GTI Telecommunications, Inc. et al, case No. 94-2-21036-0). 7. Defendant Telecom Advisory Services, Inc ("Telecom Advisory") is a Florida corporation owned and operated by Defendants Shiner and Swichkow in Boca Raton, Florida. Defendant Telecom Advisory is not registered as a broker-dealer with the SEC, yet its salesmen marketed the sale of "units" in the six LLPs that are the subject of this action. RELIEF DEFENDANTS 8. Relief Defendant Louis Stinson, Jr., P.A. ("Stinson law firm") is the law firm of Louis Stinson, Jr., an attorney who has incorporated several entities controlled by Defendants Shiner and Swichkow and acts as their registered agent. The Stinson law firm is located at 4675 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 305, Coral Gables, FL. Escrow accounts are maintained by the Stinson law firm at Regent Bank, 2205 S. University Drive, Davie, Florida in the names of the six LLPs as follows:
Each of the Stinson law firm escrow accounts received deposits from investors in the LLP units marketed by Defendant Telecom Advisory. 9. Relief Defendant Equity Service Administration, Inc. ("Equity Service") is a Florida corporation owned and operated by Defendants Shiner and Swichkow in Boca Raton, Florida, at the same address as Defendant Telecom Advisory. Equity Service was paid a flat fee for each telephone partnership "unit" purchased through Defendant Telecom Advisory for "administration." These fees were deposited into Account Number 3882878778 at Washington Mutual Bank, 1100 E. Hillsboro Boulevard, Deerfield Beach, Florida, and Account Number 3200300506 at Regent Bank, in an amount totaling approximately $273,104. 10. Relief Defendant Marketing Media, Inc. ("Marketing") is a Florida corporation located at Defendant Shiner's home address in Boca Raton, Florida. Defendant Shiner uses Marketing to perform his consulting work for the LLPs marketed by Telecom Advisory, and Marketing has received approximately $425,500 from Telecom Advisory in 2002. These fees were deposited into Account Number 1790222178 at Washington Mutual Bank. 11. Relief Defendant USA Media Group, Inc. ("USA") is a Florida corporation owned and operated by Defendants Shiner and Swichkow in Coral Gables, Florida, at the same address as the Stinson law firm. USA has received approximately $207,885 from Telecom Advisory in 2002, which was deposited into Account Number 3200301306 at Regent Bank. OTHER RELEVANT INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES 12. On Systems Technology, LLC ("On Systems") is a Colorado limited liability company formed on October 20, 2000 by Defendant Wetherald to provide local exchange and other telecommunications services in the State of Colorado. Defendant Wetherald owns 35% of On Systems. On information and belief, two trusts have been established for Defendants Shiner and Swichkow to hold their combined 35% ownership interest. 13. John A. Kasbar & Co., Inc. ("Kasbar & Co.") is a Florida corporation in Hollywood, Florida owned and operated by John A. Kasbar ("Kasbar"). Kasbar and Co. provided accounting services to the Stinson law firm for the escrow accounts established for the LLPs. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d) and 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d) and 77v(a), and Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa. 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because many of the Defendants' acts and transactions constituting violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act occurred in the Southern District of Florida. In addition, the principal offices of Defendant Telecom Advisory Services, Inc. are located in the Southern District of Florida, and Defendants Shiner and Swichkow reside in the Southern District of Florida. Relief Defendants Louis Stinson Jr., P.A., Equity Service Administration, Inc., Marketing Media, Inc. and USA Media Group, Inc also have their principal offices in the Southern District of Florida. 16. Defendants, directly and indirectly, have made use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, the means and instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce, and the mails, in connection with the acts, practices, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint. THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME 1. The Unregistered Offerings Mile High 17. Investors were offered "units" in Mile High Telecom Partners, LLP (the "Mile High Partnership"), which was represented by the defendants and their agents to be a Colorado limited liability partnership established to own and operate a "competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC)," named Mile High Telecom, that would provide local telephone services in Colorado, an area already serviced by Qwest Communications ("Qwest"). Investors were told that Mile High Telecom would be managed by On Systems Technology, LLC ("On Systems"), a telecommunications company located in Denver, Colorado, and that On Systems had secured the proper licenses to operate a local phone company. They were also told that the head of On Systems, Defendant Wetherald, was experienced in the management of telephone companies. 18. Prospective investors were solicited by facsimile, inviting them to serve on an advisory board for a start up telephone company and receive potential income in excess of $100,000. When investors called the contact telephone number from the facsimile they were connected to a salesman at Telecom Advisory who described what turned out to be an investment opportunity. The salesman described how the Mile High Partnership would be made up of a total of fifty (50) voting units, and thirty (30) non-voting units, to be retained by an "initial managing partner." The salesmen gave varying accounts as to how the $19,975 per unit would be allocated, but none of them ever disclosed to the investors that Telecom Advisory would receive a 40% commission. Investors were told that they would recoup their investment somewhere between 9 and 24 months, depending on the salesman, followed by substantial monthly checks, until the company was sold for a significant profit. The salesmen also offered widely varying estimates of the potential buyout value for each unit, ranging from $175,000 up to $3,750,000 per unit. The salesmen also told the investors that the non-voting units (held by the initial managing partner) would not be offered for sale or share in the profits until all of the owners of the voting units received profit distributions equal to the amount of their initial investment. To close the deal, Telecom Advisory salesmen often used "boiler room" tactics, such as telling investors that the units were almost sold out, and they needed to buy immediately in order not to miss the opportunity. One salesman told an investor that an investment in the Mile High Partnership was "like having a license to steal." 19. Investors were provided with additional documentation concerning the investment, in some cases after they had already sent their purchase money to Telecom Advisory. These materials included offering materials with profit projections, a Mile High Telecom Partners, LLP Partnership Agreement, a rollover IRA Application for Entrust Administration ("Entrust") (located in Oakland, California), and a Mile High Telecom Partners, LLP Application, including Subscription Documents and a Subscription Application and Agreement. Shiner prepared the offering materials with assistance from Wetherald as to profit and buyout projections. The offering materials stated that the LLPs had not been registered under the federal securities laws or the laws of any state. Shiner included the IRA Application in order to tap into investors' retirement accounts, a tactic which worked on dozens of occasions. In those instances, the investor would establish an self-directed IRA at Entrust and roll their retirement money into it. The IRA ploy allowed Telecom Advisory's salesmen to ensnare some investors of modest means who otherwise never would have been able to afford to send $19,975 into this scheme. Based on the representations made by the Telecom Advisory salesmen, including the representation that they needed to invest quickly, many investors completed the paperwork after only a cursory review. 20. Despite language in the partnership agreement, the investors did not have meaningful managerial control over the Mile High Partnership, and were, in substance, passive investors. Many of the investors lacked the technical expertise or business savvy required to manage any sort of company, let alone a start up in a highly regulated industry. The Telecom Advisory salesmen told the investors that this was not important, since On Systems and Defendant Wetherald had the expertise. This was true of investors who became "managing partners" as well. Most did not even live in Colorado, where the business was supposed to be located. They continued to operate their own businesses and merely received updates outlining the purported success of Mile High Telecom by e-mail, telephone and facsimile. They did nothing to contribute to the success or failure of the partnerships, and expected profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. Furthermore, as described more fully below, defendants gutted the Mile High Partnership, leaving the investors with insufficient funding to create or run a successful business. 21. Once investors had acquired a unit in the Mile High Partnership, they were often induced to invest in additional units or portions thereof. Investors were also induced to purchase identical units in other LLPs that were being set up to operate phone companies in other states in a virtually identical fashion to Mile High Telecom. Investors were repeatedly told that On Systems, and Defendant Wetherald had extensive expertise in operating telecommunications companies, and that Mile High Telecom's customer base was growing substantially due to On System's and Wetherald's successful management. 22. Monies received from investors were deposited into an escrow account held by Relief Defendant Louis Stinson Jr., P.A. for the Mile High Partnership. Investors sent money to the Stinson escrow account in one of three ways: 1) checks mailed to Telecom Advisory, 2) direct wire transfers to Regent Bank, or 3) payments (including wire transfers) directed through Entrust, the California-based IRA custodian. Approximately 45% of these funds were disbursed to the Defendants and Relief Defendants in the form of "administration of escrow," "commissions," "marketing costs," "partnership administration," and "design, printing, shipping, etc." payments. None of these payments went towards the operation of the underlying business, the local phone company. For example, from each $19,975 invested by the voting unit partners, Telecom Advisory typically received $8,000, Equity Service received $850, Stinson and Kasbar received a combined $125, and On Systems received $8,000, leaving only $3,000 in the operating escrow for the partnership itself, thus ensuring its ultimate failure. This distribution was even more skewed for the non-voting units. For each $19,975 invested for a non-voting unit, Telecom Advisory typically received $16,000, Equity Service received $850, Stinson and Kasbar received a combined $125, leaving only $3,000 in the operating escrow for the partnership itself. On Systems, the only entity even purporting to operate the local phone company received no proceeds from a non-voting unit. Arizona, Washington, Minnesota, 23. Similar representations were made by the salesmen at Telecom Advisory to sell "units" in the other LLPs, in connection with the provision of telephone services in Arizona, Washington, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska, and Oregon. In addition, with Mile High Telecom already operating at the time these other LLPs were marketed, the salesmen routinely touted the purported success of Mile High Telecom as reason to purchase units in the other LLPs. Further, like Mile High Telecom, those phone companies that were actually established by Wetherald in these later states were never properly licensed to operate. The salesmen routinely misrepresented to investors the fact that Wetherald failed to secure the proper licenses in these states. 24. Monies received from investors were deposited into separate escrow accounts held by Relief Defendant Louis Stinson Jr., P.A. in the names of the Arizona, Washington, Minnesota, Iowa-Nebraska, and Oregon Partnerships. As with the Mile High Partnership, approximately half or more of these funds were disbursed to the Defendants and Relief Defendants in some form of commissions and "management fees," none of which went towards the operation of the underlying businesses, the local phone companies. 2. Material Misrepresentations and Omissions in the Offer or Sale of Securities and in Connection With the Purchase or Sale of Securities 25. In making their sales pitch concerning Mile High (and the other phone company partnerships), the salesmen at Telecom Advisory made a number of materially misleading statements and omissions. For example, investors were promised that their initial capital contribution would be returned within two years or less, with significant profits thereafter. When offering materials were sent to potential investors by Telecom Advisory, they also included unrealistic and baseless projections for rates of return and potential buyout offers, such as the claim that a buyout would yield between $175,000 and $525,000 per unit. 26. Investors were never told that the majority of the invested funds were used to pay exorbitant commissions and "management fees" to entities controlled by the Defendants, including the Relief Defendants herein, which is exactly what happened to their money. Instead, they were told either that approximately 10% -15% of the investment would go towards commissions, or the matter was never discussed. 27. Investors were never told of the interlocking relationships of the entities and individuals involved in the promotion of Mile High, nor were they told that each of the Defendants Shiner, Swichkow and Wetherald had negative regulatory histories. In fact, Defendants Shiner and Swichkow not only controlled Telecom Advisory, Equity Service, and USA Media, but upon information and belief, also had an ownership interest in On Systems. Shiner was barred from associating with a broker-dealer by the SEC. He was convicted of federal tax evasion and was on federal probation during the marketing of several of the LLPs. He was also sued in March 2002 by the SEC in connection with a similar scheme that promoted electric power company partnerships. Swichkow paid a $10,000 penalty and is prohibited from making false statements or misrepresenting the material aspects of any business venture he offers in connection with his violations of the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC")'s Franchise Rule. Investors were never made aware of these facts, nor were they told that Defendant Wetherald, touted as having experience in the telecommunications business, had a prior injunction in Oregon and had entered into a consent decree in Washington State that prevented him from engaging in the telecommunications business, two states where subsequent LLPs were to operate. 28. Investors were told that the thirty (30) non-voting units in the Mile High Partnership would be retained by the initial managing partner, or be converted to a voting unit for $3000 (and held by the promoters) until the investors in the voting units had recouped their initial investment from the profits of the operation of the phone company. In fact, a number of the non-voting units were sold the same day the last voting unit was sold, with defendant Telecom Advisory receiving twice the already exorbitant commission received for the sale of the voting units. Further, some investors were sold non-voting units after being specifically told that they were buying voting units. In those instances, Telecom still sent the investors voting unit certificates, with no indication that they had purchased what was originally a non-voting unit. 29. The investors were told that Mile High Telecom was properly licensed to operate as a CLEC in the State of Colorado when the Mile High Partnership was formed. In fact, Mile High Telecom was never properly licensed to operate a telephone company in Colorado. Wetherald hid this problem from the investors for months, even after the Colorado Public Utility Commission ("CPUC") issued an Order to Show Cause against Mile High Telecom. He further misled the investors when the problem surfaced by claiming that there was merely a misunderstanding as to which entity should hold the license. Contrary to claims in the offering materials, the phone companies that were established for the Arizona, Washington, Minnesota, Iowa-Nebraska and Oregon LLPs were not properly licensed either. 30. Investors in the LLPs for Arizona, Washington, Minnesota, Iowa-Nebraska and Oregon were told that Mile High Telecom was profitable and would soon be returning the partners their initial investments, when in fact Mile High Telecom was in trouble financially and never returned any investor's initial investment. In fact, although Wetherald managed to obtain approximately 13,000 subscribers for Mile High's Services, he not only failed to return money to the investors, according to Qwest, he also accumulated approximately a $4 million debt for leasing the telephone lines, which has never been repaid. 31. Each of these misrepresentations and omissions is a material fact that investors should have been told before they were induced to part with their money. Had the investors known the truth concerning any of these representations or omissions, they would have not invested in the LLPs. 3. Acting as an Unregistered Broker-Dealer 32. Defendant Telecom Advisory, while engaged in the above-described offer and sale of securities had not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as required by Section 15 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78. Telecom Advisory fits within none of the exemptions from registration. Defendants Shiner and Swichkow, while engaged in the above-described offer and sale of securities, were not associated with a properly registered broker-dealer. 33. Defendant Shiner was previously barred by the SEC from associating with a broker dealer for five years, and has never reapplied to the SEC in order to do so. COUNT ONE OFFER AND SALE OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES IN VIOLATION OF 34. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 35. No registration statement was filed or in effect with the Commission pursuant to the Securities Act and no exemption from registration exists with respect to the securities and transactions described in this Complaint. 36. Since at least February 2001 (and possibly earlier) through the present, Defendants Mark Shiner, Leon Swichkow and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc., directly and indirectly, have been: (i) making use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to sell securities, through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise; and/or (ii) making use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise, without a registration statement having been filed or being in effect with the SEC as to such securities. 37. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Mark Shiner, Leon Swichkow and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc, directly and indirectly, have violated and, and unless enjoined, will continue to violate Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c). COUNT II FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF 38. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 39. Since at least February 2001 (and possibly earlier) through the present, Defendants Mark Shiner, Leon Swichkow, Timothy Wetherald and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc., directly and indirectly, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce and by use of the mails, in the offer or sale of securities, have been knowingly, willfully or recklessly employing devices, schemes or artifices to defraud. 40. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Mark Shiner, Leon Swichkow, Timothy Wetherald and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc., directly and indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1). COUNT III FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(b) 41. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 42. Since at least February 2001 (and possibly earlier) through the present, Defendants Mark Shiner, Leon Swichkow, Timothy Wetherald and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc., directly and indirectly, by use of the means and instrumentality of interstate commerce, and of the mails in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, have been knowingly, willfully or recklessly: (a) employing devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) making untrue statements of material facts and omitting to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or (c) engaging in acts, practices and courses of business which have operated, are now operating and will operate as a fraud upon the purchasers of such securities. 43. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Mark Shiner, Leon Swichkow, Timothy Wetherald and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc., directly or indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. COUNT IV FRAUD IN VIOLATION 44. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 43 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 45. Since at least February 2001 (and possibly earlier) through the present, Defendants Mark Shiner, Leon Swichkow, Timothy Wetherald and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc., directly and indirectly, by use of the means and instrumentality of interstate commerce, have effected transactions in, or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of, securities while employing manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent devices or contrivances. 46. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Mark Shiner, Leon Swichkow, and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc., directly or indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 15(c) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(c). COUNT V ACTING AS UNREGISTERED BROKER DEALER IN VIOLATION OF 47. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 46 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 48. Since at least February 2001 (and possibly earlier) through the present, Defendants Mark Shiner, Leon Swichkow and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc., made use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the mails to effect, induce and attempt to induce the purchase and sale of securities without being registered with the SEC as a broker or dealer, and when no exemption from registration was available. 49. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Mark Shiner, Leon Swichkow, and Telecom Advisory Services, Inc., directly or indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a). RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that the Court: I. Declaratory Relief Declare, determine and find that Defendants committed the violations of the federal securities laws alleged in this Complaint. II. Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief Issue a Temporary Restraining Order, a Preliminary Injunction and a Permanent Injunction, restraining and enjoining all Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, and each of them, from violating: (i) Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a) and (ii) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, thereunder; and enjoining Defendants Shiner, Swichkow and Telecom Advisory, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, and each of them, from violating: (i) Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c) and (ii) Sections 15(a) and 15(c) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78o(a), 78o(c). III. Disgorgement Issue an Order requiring Defendants and Relief Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten profits or proceeds that they have received as a result of the acts and/or courses of conduct complained of herein, with prejudgment interest. IV. Penalties Issue an Order directing 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). V. Asset Freeze and Accountings Issue an Order freezing the assets of Defendants, and Relief Defendants, until further Order of the Court, and requiring from each of the Defendants and Relief Defendants a document sworn to before a notary public setting forth all assets (whether real or personal) and accounts (including, but not limited to, bank accounts, savings accounts, securities or brokerage accounts, and deposits of any kind) in which they (whether solely or jointly), directly or indirectly (including through a corporation, trust or partnership), either have an interest or over which they have the power or right to exercise control. VI. Records Preservation and Expedited Discovery Issue an Order requiring Defendants and Relief Defendants to preserve any records related to the subject matter of this lawsuit that are in their custody, possession or subject to their control, and to respond to discovery on an expedited basis. VII. Further Relief Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate. VIII. Retention of Jurisdiction Further, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this action in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees that may hereby be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the Commission for additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court. Respectfully submitted, February 7, 2003
By:____________________ Thomas C. Newkirk
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp17977.htm
|