Chemical Trust, et al.

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 16594 / June 15, 2000

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. CHEMICAL TRUST, ET. AL., Case No. 00-8015-CIV-RYSKAMP (S.D. Fla.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on June 6, 2000, the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, entered a summary judgment against defendants Virgil W. Womack ("Womack"), Clifton Wilkinson ("Wilkinson"), and Lewey L. Cato, III ("Cato"). The judgment permanently enjoins Womack, Wilkinson, and Cato from violating the registration and anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, namely Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The judgment also orders these defendants to disgorge, jointly and severally, $17 million in ill-gotten gains and to pay $75,000 each in civil penalties. The Court also continued the freeze of these defendants' assets and ordered them to repatriate investors' funds.

On January 7, 2000, the SEC filed a complaint against Chemical Trust ("Chemical"), U.S. Guarantee Corp ("U.S. Guarantee"), United Marketing Trust ("United"), Womack, Wilkinson, Cato, and Alvin A. Tang ("Tang"), among others, seeking emergency relief. On January 7, 2000, the Court entered a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against the defendants and, on January 13, 2000, entered a preliminary injunction against them. On April 12, 2000, the Court entered a consent injunction against Tang, in which he neither admits nor denies the allegations against him, permanently enjoining him from violating the registration and anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, namely Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and ordered him to pay disgorgement and civil penalties in amounts to be subsequently determined. Also, on May 12, 2000, the Court entered a default judgment against relief defendant Prestige Accounting Services, Inc. ("Prestige"), froze its assets, and ordered Prestige to pay disgorgement and to repatriate investors' funds.

According to the SEC's complaint, the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sale of at least $17 million in investment contracts to the investing public. The contracts promised investors returns of between 9.25% to 15% annually, depending upon the amount invested. The complaint further alleges that Chemical represented to investors that their funds would be used to purchase U.S. Treasury notes and distressed properties and that the investment was 100% guaranteed through a security bond issued by U.S. Guarantee. According to the SEC's complaint, Chemical has not purchased any U.S. treasury notes or distressed properties, and investor funds are not secured as promised. Instead, the complaint alleges that the defendants misappropriated millions of dollars in investor monies and expatriated them to offshore bank accounts. The complaint alleges that in a classic Ponzi scheme fashion, Chemical used new investor funds to pay interest to existing investors. The complaint further alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions to investors concerning, among other things, the assets of U.S. Guarantee and the background of its principals.