Petro-Suisse Ltd. and Mark Gasarch

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22829 / October 2, 2013

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Petro-Suisse Ltd. and Mark Gasarch, Civil Action No. 12-CV-6221 (S.D.N.Y.) (AJN)

Court Enters Final Judgments Against Defendants Petro-Suisse Ltd. and Mark Gasarch

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on September 26, 2013, the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, entered final judgments against defendants Petro-Suisse Ltd. and Mark Gasarch. The Court enjoined Petro-Suisse from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Petro-Suisse and Gasarch from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The final judgments orders Petro-Suisse and Gasarch jointly and severally liable to pay $8,370,000 in disgorgement, deemed satisfied by the previous payments made by Petro-Suisse, and for Gasarch to pay a $130,000 civil penalty. Petro-Suisse and Gasarch consented to the final judgments without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint.

The Commission's complaint alleges that between 2003 and 2006, in connection with the purchase and sale of 21 limited partnership interests offered by Petro-Suisse to finance the drilling of oil wells in Trinidad, Gasarch, Petro-Suisse's Director, Treasurer, and legal counsel, drafted 21 private placements memorandums (PPMs) that contained materially false and misleading information. Specifically, the PPMs stated that Petro-Suisse or an affiliate, as general partner of the 21 limited partnership offerings, would cause each of the 21 partnerships to enter into written agreements to finance the drilling of oil wells in Trinidad for which the partnerships would receive contractual rights to receive returns measured by the net revenues of the wells drilled and payable out of those revenues. The PPMs contained materially false and misleading information because the partnerships never entered into any such written agreements.

For further information, see Litigation Release No. 22448 (August 14, 2012).