SEC v. ECAREER HOLDINGS, INC.; ECAREER, INC.; JOSEPH J. AZZATA; DEAN A. ESPOSITO; JOSEPH DEVITO; and FREDERICK J. BIRKS, No. 9:15-cv-80446, Southern District of Florida (Apr. 9, 2015) — Complaint

Dellïd
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SO UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.
FILED by      D.C.
P ? ï !) 7 2 2 1 5
11!2k '11 l-- '' '-: E-.' (%.ti r'' kr/'i. t . 1..6% F-'1 I 2' bî '1 (:''.;/ I 7 'l2 i7EE)''
q? j k .- F ? jk 1. J û ' * D 1 :3. -1 C h '( '? . .. .  . w) .     .z .
Sp i ' ) c' ' f : t. .p. - Ik! ! .5'%..6. f $/ 1 !
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM M ISSION,
1 5Pl
aintiff,
V.
ECAREER HOLDINGS, INC., ECAREER, INC.,
JOSEPH J. AZZATA, DEAN A. ESPOSITO,
JO SEPH DEVITO , and FREDERICK J. BIRK S,
Defendants,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
VIPER ASSET M ANAGEM ENT, LLC,
Esro CONSULTIN G  LLC,
DJc CONSULTIN G LL ,C
J & D M AQKETIN  ,G LLC,
GRYPHON ASSET M ANAGEM ENT, LLC, and
CARLA AZZATA,
)
)
)
)
)Relief Defendants.
)
-
8 0 4 4 6
-CtV-- COHN
'        - -   ..-
%RWJ,%V
COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiff Seclzrities and Exchange Commission (ttcommission'') alleges as follows:
INTRO DUCTION
The Commission tiles this emergency action to stop an ongoing fraud that has
from at least August 2010 through the present, which defrauded m ore than 400
1.
operated
investors out of more than $1 1 million and continues to defraud new and existing investors.
Defendants ecareer Holdings, lnc., ecareer, lnc. (collectively, ttecareer'') and its CEO,
Defendant Joseph J. Azzata, employed Relief Defendant Viper Asset M anagement, LLC to
operate a boiler room, directed by three recidivists, Defendants Dean A. Esposito, Joseph Devito
and Frederick J. Birks who have, among other things, been barred from acting as brokers or

dealers.  The Defendants used the boiler room to cold call investors, a num ber of whom are
senior citizens, to invest in a fraudulent offering and sale of tmregistered ecareer shares.
2.   To swindle more than $1 1 million from investors, Defendants ecareer Holdings,
ecareer, lnc., Azzata, Esposito, Devito and Birks (collectively çtDefendants'') canied out a
fraudulent scheme, Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks violated prior Orders prohibiting
them from selling a penny stock and acting as a broker or dealer, Defendants ecareer Holdings
and Azzata made false filings with the Commission, the Defendmlts sold unregistered shares, and
they m ade a series of m aterial misrepresentations and omissions.
First, they falsely represented that ecareer, a start-up company, would becom e
profitable by using investors' proceeds as working capital to develop its online job stafting
business. lnstead of using the funds as working capital, Defendants, nmong other things, paid
exorbitant fees to sales agents in excess of approximately 30% of the amount raised, or
approximately $3.5 million. These undisclosed fees made the Defendants' claims that investors
would profit from their investments false and misleading as a large percentage of investors'
proceeds were being diverted from the company's working capital.  Additionally, these
unwarranted fees were hidden from  investors as they far exceeded the much lower amounts
represented to investors.
Second, Azzata misappropriated at least $650,000 of investors' proceeds to pay
for personal expenses such as motorsports, retail merchants, and family private school mition.
Once again, these tmwarranted diversions from ecareer's working capital made the claims that
investors would profit from the company's use of their investments as working capital false and
misleading.

Third, the Defendants falsely claim ed that they were selling the restricted shares
only to accredited or sophisticated investors, while in reality a number of the investors they
targeted tand sold restricted shares to) were unaccredited and unsophisticated.
6.    Fourth, Esposito, Devito and Birks offered and sold ecazeer's pelmy stock to
investors while concealing their significant disciplinary histories, which included, am ong other
things, broker-dealer association and penny stock bars, which prohibited them from, among other
things, offering and selling ecareer's penny stock.
Fifth, after the company's reverse merger in 2013,in ecareer's quarterly and
nnnual filings, ecareer and Azzata made further m isrepresentations by mischaracterizing the true
nature of the exorbitant fees paid to the sales agents. ecazeer's filings also falsely claim that
funds raised through the tmregistered offering were used for working capital purposes and that
sales were only made to sophisticated or accredited investors, while also concealing Azzata's
misappropriation of more than $650,000 in investor proceeds.
8.    During the Commission's investigation conducted prior to iiling this Complaint,
Azzata, Esposito, Devito and Birksasserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination to nearly every question asked by the Commission on these issues.
Through their fraudulent conduct the Defendants and Relief Defendants Viper
Asset M anagem ent, LLC, Espo Consulting, LLC, DJC Consulting, J & D M arketing, LLC,
Gryphon Asset Management, LLC and Carla Azzata (collectively, tûRelief Defendants'') received
millions of dollars of investors' proceeds. ln addition, through this misconduct: (a) Defendants
ecareer Holdings, ecareer, Inc., Azzata, Esposito, Devito and Birks violated Sections 5(a), 5(c)
and 17(a) of the Secudties Act of 1933 (Ctseclzrities Act'') and Section 10(b) of the Sectlrities
Exchange Act of 1934 (GûExchange Act'') and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; (b) Defendant ecareer

Holdings violated Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13
thereunder; (c) Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks violated Section 15(a) Of the Exchange
Act; and (d) Defendant Azzata: (i) violated Exchange Act Rule 13a-14, (ii) aided and abetted
ecareer's violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, (iii) aided and abetted ecareer's
violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) and of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1,
and 13a-13 thereunder, (iv) aided and abetted violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act by
Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks, and (v) as a control person violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act for ecareer's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder.  Unless restrained and enjoined, the
Defendants are reasonably likely to engage in future violations of the federal secuzities laws.
II.  DEFENDANTS & RELIEF DEFENDANTS
A.   D efendants
10.   ecareer  Holdinzs  is  a  Boca Raton,  Florida-based  company,  originally
incorporated in Nevada in March 2005 as Barossa Coffee Company, lnc. On August 30, 2012,
Barossa acquired the outstanding shares of ecareer, Inc., a private entity, then Barossa changed
its name to ecareer Holdings, lnc.  The m erger was completed on April 1 1, 2013 and ecareer
Holdings started filing periodic reports with the Comm ission. ecareer Holdings is a penny stock
company that trades on the OTCBB with the ticker symbol ECHI. The company purports. to be
an online staffing business operated by Azzata. The company almost entirely relies on private
stock offerings to fund its operations.
1 1.   ecareer, Inc. is a Boca Raton, Florida corporation, incorporated in 2009 and is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of ecareer Holdings.  Azzata was the Chief Executive Officer of
4

ecareer, Inc.  W hile he was CEO, ecareer, lnc. offered securities through Private Placement
M em oranda that were purportedly only offered to accredited investors.
12.   Azzata, age 55, is the controlling shareholder, Chief Executive Officer, and
Chairman of the Board of ecareer Holdings.He was a registered representative associated with
various registered broker-dealers f'rom 1994 to 2004, including several boiler rooms.  He has
been the subject of FINRA and state disciplinary actions in 2002 and 2006.  When the
Comm ission took Azzata's testim ony during its investigation, he asserted his Fifth Am endment
privilege against self-incrim ination to nearly all substantive questions regarding this matter.
Esposito, age 46, was the president and managing member of Viper and a director
ecareer. ecareer's corporate tilings with the State of Florida Division of Corporations disclose
that Esposito served as a director of ecareer from December 2010 through at least May 20l 1 (the
nmendment removing Esposito is not dated until Febrtzazy 2013.) Esposito was a registered
representative associated with num erous registered broker-dealers from 1991 to 2004.  The
Comm ission has previously tiled two actions against him , SEC v. Dean W. Esposito, et al., Case
No. 8-80130-ClV (S.D. F1a., Feb. 7, 2008) and In the Matter ofDean A. Esposito, Exchange Act
Release No. 63863, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14241 (Feb. 7, 2011). As a result of
the Commission's actions, Esposito has been permanently enjoined and barred from participating
in any offering of a penny stock and fzom associating with any broker or dealer.  He is not
registered with the Commission in any capacity.  W hen the Comm ission took Esposito's
testim ony during its investigation, he asserted his Fifth Am endment privilege against self-
incrimination to nearly all substantive questions regarding this matter.
14.   Devito, age 39, was a managing member of Viper and director of ecareer.
ecareer's com orate filings with the State of Florida Division of Cop orations disclose that
5

Devito served as a director of ecareer from December 2010 through at least May 201 1 (the
amendment removing Devito is not dated until February 20l 3). Devito was fonnerly associated
with various registered broker-dealers. The Commission has previously tiled two actions against
Devito, SEC v. Joseph Devito, et al., Case No. 8-80130-CIV (S.D. F1a., Feb. 7, 2008) and In the
Matter ofloseph Devito, Exchange Act Release No. 63864, Administrative Proceeding File No.
3-14242 (Feb. 7, 2011). As a result of the Commission's actions, Devito has been enjoined and
barred from participating in any offering of a penny stock (from August 2010 through February
2012) and from associating with any broker or dealer. He is not registered with the Commission
in any capacity.  W hen the Commission took Devito's testim ony during its investigation, he
asserted his Fifth Am endment privilege against self-incrimination to nearly all substantive
questions regarding this matter.
15.   Birlts, age 43, was a sales agent and director of Viper and distributed a business
card that described him as a director of ecareer. Birks was a registered representative associated
with ntlmerous registered broker-dealers from 1993 to 2005, including former boiler rooms. The
Commission has previously filed two actions against Birks, SEC v. Frederick.l s/r/o-, Case No.
8-80130-ClV (S.D. Fla., Feb. 7, 2008) and In the Matter ofFrederick J fïr/o', Exchange Act
Release No. 63862, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14240 (Feb. 7, 2011). As a result of
the Commission's actions, Birks has been permanently enjoined and barred from participating in
any offering of a penny stock and from associating with any broker or dealer.  He is not
registered with the Com mission in any capacity. W hen the Com mission took Birk's testim ony
dming its investigation, he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to
nearly a11 substantive questions regarding this matter.
6

B.   Relief Defendants
16.   Viper was a Florida com oration fonned in 2010 with its principal place of
business in Boca Raton, Florida.Viper operated as a boiler room and its activities were directed
by barred recidivists Esposito, Devito, and Birks. In October 2014, Esposito, Viper's president
Viper has never been registered with theand managing member, voluntarily dissolved the entity.
Commission in any capacity. W ithout any legitimate basis, Viper received investors' proceeds
emanating from the Defendants' securities fraud.
Espo Consultinz is a Florida limited liability company formed in 2009 with its
principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. Esposito is its m anaging mem ber. Esposito
received transaction-based compensation through Espo Consulting for sales of ecareer's stock.
Espo Consulting has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. W ithout any
legitimate basis, Espo Consulting received investors' proceeds emanating from the Defendants'
securities fraud.
J & D M arketine is a Florida lim ited liability company form ed in 2009 with its
principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. Devito is its sole officer, director and
managing member, and he received transaction-based compensation through J & D M arketing
for sales of ecareer's stock. J & D M arketing has never been registered with the Commission in
arly capacity.  W ithout any legitim ate basis, J & D M arketing received investors' proceeds
emanating from the Defendants' securities fraud.
19.   DJC Consultina is a Florida limited liability company formed in 2008 that had
its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. Esposito and Devito were its managing
members, and it was administratively dissolved in 2009 for failttre to file annual reports.
Esposito and Devito each received transaction-based compensation tlzrough DJC Consulting for
7

sales of ecareer stock. DJC Consulting has never been registered with the Commission in any
capacity. W ithout any legitimate basis, DJC Consulting received investors' proceeds emanating
from the Defendants' securities fraud.
20.   G rvphon Asset M anazem ent is a Florida lim ited liability com pany form ed in
2004 with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida. Birks is its sole officer, director
and m anaging member.
sales of ecareer stock.
Birks received transaction-based com pensation through this entity for
Gryphon A sset M anagem ent has never been registered with the
Comm ission in any capacity.  W ithout any legitim ate basis, Gryphon Asset M anagem ent
received investors' proceeds emanating from the Defendants' securities fraud.
Carla Azzata, 46, is Azzata's wife.She received payments from ecareer but has
not provided any senices to it.Carla Azzata has never been registered with the Commission in
any capacity. W ithout any legitim ate basis, she received investors' proceeds emanating from the
Defendants' securities fraud.
111.   JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22.   This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d) and
22(a) of the Securities Act,15 U.S.C. jj 77t(b), 77t(d) and 77v(a); and Sections 21(d), 2 1(e),
and 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. jj 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa(a).
23.  This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and Relief Defendants
and venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because m any of the acts and transactions
constituting the violations alleged in this complaint occurred in this District. M oreover, Azzata,
Carla Azzata, and Esposito reside in the Southem District of Florida and ecareer and Viper had
their principal offices in this District which the individual Defendants worked from.
Furthermore, during the period of the misconduct Birks resided in the District.
8

24.   ln cozmection with the conduct alleged in the complaint, Defendants and Relief
Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert with others, m ade use of the means or
instnunentalities of interstate com merce or the mails.
lV.   BACKG RO UND OF ECAREER AND ITS RELATIONSH IP W ITH VIPER
25.   Azzata founded ecareer in 2009 and serves as its CEO and director.  He also
controls and has signatory power over its bank accounts and signed its corporate filings.
26.   From approximately December 2010 tmtil their resignations, Esposito and Devito
served as directors of ecareer and principals of Viper.
Prior to their association with ecareer, Azzata, Esposito, Devito and Birks had
been associated with M edical Connections, Inc., an entity that also purported to provide online
staffing resources.  In 2010, the Alabnm a Secm ities Commission entered a cease-and-desist
order against M edical Connections Holdings, lnc. for the sale of unregistered securities. In the
Matter of Medical Connections Holdings, Inc., et J/a, Alabama Admin. Order No. CD-2010-
0062, Cease and Desist Order, December 25, 2010.  Soon thereafter, ecareer began operating
from M edical Colmections' same office address in Boca Raton.
28.   Starting    approximately August  2010,  ecareer  engaged  Viper  to  sell
tmregistered, restricted shares of its stock. Viper and its sales agents conducted the majority of
investor solicitations. In general, after Viper and its sales agents convinced investors to invest,
investors completed the sales transaction by sending their investments to ecareer for the issuance
of unzegistezed, restricted shazes. In turn, ecareer sent ftmds via check or wire to Viper and its
Sales agents to pay Sales fees.
9

A.   Filines w ith the Com m ission
29.   ln 2013, after ecareer completed a reverse m erger with a Nevada shell company,
Barossa Coffee Company, ecareer began filing periodic reports with the Comm ission.  At the
time of closing the reverse merger, ecareer Holdings' board of directors consisted of Azzata and
one other individual and the Board appointed Azzata the company's chief executive officer.
30.  ln its first ammal report on Fonn 10-K filed after the reverse merger (for the tiscal
year ending June 30, 2013), ecareer and Azzata disclosed that Azzata was the company's CEO
and Chainnan of the Board and had voting control over the company.  The tiling further
disclosed that the company had revenue of just $9,092 for the fiscal year ending in June 2013
mld that it was subject to a going concern qualitkation.  Moreover,the 2013 Fonn 10-K
purportedly disclosed the nmotmt of compensation that Azzata received.  On October 4, 2013,
Azzata executed the company's 2013 Fonu 10-K as its CEO and Chairman of the Board and
certitied the accuracy of this tiling ptlrsuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act of 2002.
31.  In its first quarter of tiscal year 2014 report filed on Fonn 10-Q (for the quarter
ending September 30, 2013), the company and Azzata disclosed that ecareer was selling
tmregistered shares.  On November 14, 2013, Azzata executed this tiling as the CEO and
certified the accuracy of this tiling pursuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act.  The first quarter 2014
Form 10-Q claimed that all sales of the unregistered shares were to sophisticated or accredited
investors, no shares were sold in the form of a general solicitation, and all funds raised were used
for working capital.
32.  In its second quarter of fiscal year 2014 report filed on Form 10-Q (for the quarter
ending December 31, 2013), the company and Azzata made similar disclosers about ecareer
selling unregistered shares. On February 14, 2014, Azzata executed this tiling as the CEO and
10

certified the accuracy of this tiling pursuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act. The second quarter 2014
Form 10-Q claimed that all sales of the unregistered shares were to sophisticated or accredited
investors, no shares were sold in the fonn of a general solicitation, and all ftmds raised were used
for working capital.
ln its third quarter of tiscal year 2014 report tiled on Form 10-Q (for the quarter
ending March 30, 2014), the company and Azzata made similar disclosers about ecareer's sales
of unregistered shares. On M ay 15, 2014, Azzata executed this filing as the CEO and certified
the accuracy of this filing ptlrsuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act. The third qum er 2014 Fonn 10-
Q claimed that a1l sales of the unregistered shares were to sophisticated or accredited investors,
no shares were sold in the form of a general solicitation, and a1l funds raised were used for
working capital.
ln its 2014 annual report filed on Fonn 10-K (for the fiscal year ending Jtme 30,
2014), ecareer and Azzata disclosed that Azzata was the company's CEO, Chainnan of the
Board, and Principal Finmwial Ofticer, and had voting control over the company. The company
further disclosed that it had revenue of just $70,1 16 for the fiscal year ending in Jtme 2014 and
that it was subject to a going concern qualitication.Moreover, the Fonu 2014 10-K purportedly
disclosed the nmount of compensation that Azzata received. On Septem ber 29, 2014, Azzata
executed the company's 2014 Fonn 10-K as its CEO, Chairm an of the Board and Principal
Financial Officer and certified the accuracy of this filing pursuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act.
ln its first quarter of tiscal year 2015 report on Fonn 10-Q (for the quarter ending
September 30, 2014), the company and Azzata made similar disclosers about ecareer's sales of
unregistered shares. On November 14, 2014, Azzata executed this filing as the CEO and
certified the accuracy of this tiling plzrsuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act.The first quarter 2015

Fonn 10-Q claimed that a1l sales of the unregistered shares were to sophisticated or accredited
investors, no shares were sold in the form of a general solicitation, and all funds raised were used
for working capital.
36.  In its second quarter of fiscal year 2015 report tiled on Fonu 10-Q (for the quarter
ending December 31, 2014), the company and Azzata made similar disclosers about ecareer
continuing to sell tmregistered shares. On Febnlary 13, 2015, Azzata executed this filing as the
CEO and certitied the accuracy of this filing pursuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act.  The second
quarter Form 2015 10-Q claimed that all sales of the unregistered shares were to sophisticated or
accredited investors, no shares were sold in the form of a general solicitation, and all funds raised
were used for working capital.
V.   SCHEM E TO DEFR AUD ECAREER INVESTORS
Azzata, on behalf of ecareer, hired Viper,Esposito, Devito, Birks and their
com panies to raise capital by selling ecareer stock. Viper's offices were located in the sam e
Boca Raton building as ecareer.N otably, Azzata's ecareer oftice was physically located within
Viper's oftice suite, and next to Esposito, Devito and Birks' oftices.  Viper and its principals
operated a phone room and hired and supervised sales agents to solicit investors to plzrchase
unregistered shares of ecareer.
38.   Esposito, Devito, and Birks could not participate in the offering of a penny stock
or were prohibited from earning transaction-based compensation from the sale of ecareer's
stock, since they had been barred from acting as a broker or dealer or participating in any
offering of a penny stock. In an attempt to get around these prohibitions and to disguise the true
nature of the compensation they would receive from selling ecareer's stock, Esposito, Devito,
and Birks and their companies entered into Advisory Agreements with ecazeer (many signed by

Azzata) that attempted to categorize the compensation they would receive as an advisory fee.
These advisory agreem ents also provided for a finder's fee of 10% of the dollar am ount of the
sectzrities purchased by accredited investors (plus a 3% expense allowalwe) if the advisor
introduced to the company a prospective accredited investor. M oreover, the advisory agreem ents
provided that Esposito, Devito, and Birks and their companies would assist ecareer in preparing
a business plan and Private Placement Memorandum (çTPM'') for submission to prospective
investors.
39.   However in reality, and in direct contravention of the Orders prohibiting them
from once again engaging in this type of misconduct, Esposito, Devito, Birks and their entities
received transaction-based compensation or sales comm issions from ecareer for the sale of its
securities. Viper invoices attempt to conceal the true natlzre of these paym ents by describing the
transaction-based or sales comm issions as tf nder's fees'' for each customer of 13% , in addition
to ttadvisory fees'' and çûconsulting fees,'' together totaling a fee of about 30% of the nmount
raised from investors.
40.   M oreover, ecareer sold stock to non-accredited investors, so tinder's fees were
not available on these transactions. Furtherm ore, the extensive involvement of Esposito, Devito,
and Birks in these sales transactions went far beyond merely acting as finders. In reality, they
solicited and sold shares to investors and acted as the prim ary, if not exclusive, interface between
ecareer and its investors.
Notably, all the individual defendants asserted their Fifth Am endment privilege
when questioned about the services Viper, Esposito, Devito or Birks provided to ecareer
(including the solicitation of investors) and the fees they received.
13

42.   Additionally, the PPM S that Azzata issued on ecareer's behalf, and that Esposito,
Devito, and Birks helped prepare are replete with falsehoods. Typical versions of the ecareer
PPMS represented, among other things, that ecareer: (a) may retain the services of licensed
broker/dealers who ecareer will pay comm issions that will not exceed 10% of the proceeds
raised by the broker/dealer', (b) may use tinders who ecareer will pay a fee not to exceed 10% of
gross proceeds', (c) will not pay commissions to any ofticers or directors who sell securities; and
(d) will only offer securities to accredited investors. These material representations were false
since, among other reasons: (a) ecareer used unlicensed brokers and paid commissions that
exceeded 10% of the nmount raised from investors', (b) ecareer paid fees to finders in excessive
of 10% and they did not pay legitimate finders' fees; (c) ecareer paid commissions to officers or
directors who sold secmities; and (d) the Defendants offered and sold securities to unaccredited
investors.
A.    The Fraudulent Offer and Sale of ecareer Stock
43.   Viper's sales agents, including Defendants Esposito, Devito, and Birks, as well as
agents employed directly by ecareer, made cold calls to solicit potential investors, m any of
whom were elderly and unsophisticated and unaccredited. Viper offered investors restricted
shares of ecareer stock, at prices between $0. 10 and a $1 per share, telling investors they could
sell the stock for a considerable protit. Viper sales agents told ilw estors that ecareer would use
their funds for business development, including the development of a website called
tçopenreq.com'' and that ecareer would make money selling job advertisements and job
placement packages to companies in the medical tield and other industries. Devito, Esposito
and Birks also told investors that sales fees were minimal or did not discuss fees at a11 and did
not infonn investors that Devito, Esposito and Birks were barred from the securities industry.
14

44.   ecareer also offered prospective investors totzrs of their office in Florida where
Viper and ecareer company representatives, including Esposito, Devito, Birks, and Azzata, gave
investor presentations.  Several individuals invested after attending ecareer seminars in New
York and New Jersey, at which Esposito, Devito, Birks and Azzata solicited investm ents and
directly m et with prospective investors.
45.   lnvestors nationwide since at least August 2010, were solicited by Azzata,
Esposito, Devito and Birks. Som e investors knew Azzata from his prior aftiliation with M edical
Connections and expected to recoup their prior investment funds.  M any investors were
tmsophisticated, passive investors who relied on their sales agents (principally Esposito, Devito
and Birks) for updates on ecareer's business. In addition, Azzata provided updates to investors.
46.   Esposito, Devito, Birks and Azzata touted ecareer as a protitable investment that
was raising investor funds to develop and grow its online medical staffing business. Devito also
told investors that ecareer stock was a good value and would likely rise in price to $6 to $8 a
share, with comparable companies trading at $12 per share.  In addition, Birks told another
investor in approxim ately November 2012, that he was contident ecareer's stock would double
within four to six months, and in approxim ately Decem ber 2012 he told another investor the
stock would increase up to $30 a share.
47.   Esposito, Devito, Birks and Azzata, along with other sales agents, sent news
articles to investors touting ecareer's success, its internet presence and business awards.  The
sales agents told investors that ecareer would use their ftmds for ecareer's working capital,
business development, expansion and marketing its job placement services.
48.   After Viper sales agents, and other sales agents, contacted investors via cold calls
or during ecareer and Azzata's in-person seminars or meetings, Azzata, Esposito, Devito, Birks

and sales agents sent PPMS and marketing materials to potential investors (via emails, FedEx and
in-person) that touted ecareer's success and its potential in the online stafting industry.
Investors received ecareer PPM S and stock purchase agreem ents, which typically included a
cover letler signed by Azzata.
B.   M aterial M isrepresentations and Om issions to ecareer lnvestors
Undisclosed Exorbitant Sales Fees and M isrepresentations About the
Use of Investors' Proceeds
Azzata, Esposito, Devito and Birks made material m isrepresentations and
omissions to investors who they solicited to ptlrchase ecareer stock through cold-calls,
roadshows, and in-person m eetings. Am ong these m aterial m isrepresentations, Azzata, Esposito,
Devito and Birks falsely told investors that purchasing ecareer shares was a good investment
and investor ftmds would be used for ecareer's business development and working capital when,
in reality, ecareer paid fees of approximately 30% to its sales agents. Azzata also materially
omitted that he had m isappropriated investor ftmds forlavish personal expenses.  Esposito,
Devito and Birks would, if they mentioned sales fees at all, falsely tell prospective investors that
sales fees would be m inim al or not exceed 10% of investors' funds, and they distributed multiple
versions of ecareer's PPM S to investors that falsely stated fees to licensed brokers or dealers
would not exceed 10% of investors' funds, when they knew that ecareer paid much higher sales
fees and they knew they could not receive broker or dealer fees, since they had been prohibited
from acting as a broker or dealer.
2.   ecareer Used Unregistered Brokers and Dealers, Concealed Brokers'
Prior Disciplinarv Historv. lndusta  and Pennv Stock Bars
50.   Esposito, Devito and Birks had been barred from participating in pelmy stock
offerings and from the securities industry, yet they each distributed PPM S that stated that

comm issions would only be paid to licensed broker-dealers. Hence, they knew that they could
not receive fees since they were not licensed.
51.   Furthermore, Esposito, Devito and Birks solicited investors to purchase ecareer
pelmy stock, representing they were offering the investm ents on behalf of ecareer, while
knowing: they had prior disciplinary history, had been previously barred from association with
any broker or dealer and were subject to district court orders barring them from participation in
penny stock offerings. Nonetheless, they did not disclose this negative and material information
to investors. Moreover, ecareer and Azzata omitted to disclose that Esposito, Devito and Birks
were barred by the Com mission from association with any broker or dealer or from engaging in
penny stock offerings.
ecareer Tareeted Unaccredited and Unsophisticated Investors
52.  ecareer's PPMS land as discussed below, the company's periodic filings) also
m aterially misrepresented that sales of restricted shares would only be made to accredited or
sophisticated investors. Azzata, Esposito, Devito mld Birks offered and sold ecareer shares to at
least several unaccredited and tmsophisticated investors.  ln addition, they targeted senior
citizens, especially older senior citizens, as at least 38 of the investors in the fraudulent,
tmregistered offering were ages 80 or older and at least 20 were over 85 years old.
4.    The Defendants M isappropriated Investor Proceeds
53.  Contrary to the Defendants' representations made to investors: (1) approximately
$3.5 million, or 30% of investor funds was paid as sales fees, including to Viper and former
ecareer directors Esposito and Devito; and (2) Azzata and his family misappropriated
approximately $650,000 of investor proceeds, including $47,000 in ATM cash withdrawals,
$135,000 for motorsports related expenditures, $88,000 to Carla Azzata, $175,000 in American

Express charges by Carla Azzata, $25,000 in school tuition for Azzata's children, and over
$59,000 at various retail merchants.
5.    M ateriallv False Statem ents in ecareer's Periodic Filinas
54.   ecareer and Azzata m aterially m isrepresented key inform ation about the
company's directors, their compensation, and omitted to state material facts in its quarterly and
annual tilings with the Com mission.
55.   In its Forms 10-K for the years ending
Azzata failed to disclose the true nature  of Azzata's
misappropriated more than $650,000 of investors' proceeds. Moreover, they also misrepresented
that payments to third-parties were for titinder,'' consultant and advisor services.  In reality,
June 30, 2013 and 2014, ecareer and
compensation and that he had
ecareer was paying Viper, Esposito, Devito, Birks and their consulting companies for selling
unregistered ecazeer securities.
56.  In its Forms 10-Q made during tiscal years 2014 and 2015, ecareer and Azzata
further m isrepresented material infonnation about its unregistered sales of equity securities and
use of proceeds. Those tilings falsely state that: (1) ftmds raised were being used for working
capital puposes; (2)sales were made to sophisticated oraccredited investors; and (3) the
company did not sell securities by any form of general solicitation or general advertising. As
further discussed above, these statements are false and m isleading.
C.   The Continuinz Offer and Sale of ecareer's Stock
57.   ecareer continues to solicit investors to purchase its urlregistered stock and
receive investor proceeds. For exnmple, from March 2-16, 2015, ecareer deposited checks from
8 investors totaling $21,000 to purchase unregistered ecareer shares.  Even after Viper was
dissolved, ecareer has continued to solicit and take investments from investors.
18

D.   Azzata Controls ecareer H oldinas and ecareer. Inc.
58.   Azzata controls ecareer Holdings through his stock ownership, his execution of
the company's filings, his executive positions, and his position as Chainnan of the Board. By
virtue of his control over ecareer Holdings, Azzata also controls, ecareer, lnc., which is ecareer
Holdings wholly-owned subsidiary. Azzata's control over these entities, allows him to control
their general affairs and the specitic policies that ecareer Holdings and ecareer, Inc. have used,
and continue to use, to violate the federal securities laws.
E.   Defendants and Relief Defendants Received Investors' Funds
59.   W ithout any legitim ate basis, each of the Defendants and Relief Defendants
received investors' proceeds em anating from the Defendants' securities fraud.
60.   From August 2010 through the present, ecareer has raised approximately $1 1
million from m ore than 400 investors who invested in ecareer's stock or warrants.
61.   From the investors' proceeds, approximately 30% or $3.5 million has been paid
out in what were in reality transaction-based commissions. A few exmnples: (1) more than
$900,000 of investors' proceeds was paid to J & D Marketing, which is controlled by Devito; (2)
more than $880,000 of investors' proceeds was paid to Espo Consulting, which is controlled by
Esposito; (3) more than $270,000 of investors' proceeds was paid to Gryphon Asset
Management, which is controlled by Birks; (4) $30,000 of investors' proceeds was paid to DJC
Consulting, which is controlled by Esposito and Devito; (5) $28,000 of investors' proceeds was
paid directly to Esposito; (6) $28,000 of investors' proceeds was paid directly to Devito; (6)
$8,000 of investors' proceeds was paid directly to Birks', and (7) approximately $400,000 of
investors' proceeds was paid directly to Viper (Viper also paid in the aggregate from this and

other securities solicitations hundreds of thousands of dollars to Gryphon Asset M anagement
,
J
& D M arketing, Espo Consulting, DJC Consulting, Birks
,
Devito, and Esposito).
Fxom the investors' proceeds, at least $650,000 was misappropriated by Azzata.
A few examples: (1) $88,000 of investors' proceeds was paid directly to Carla Azzata, Azzata's
wife, who did not work for or provide any services for ecreer and was otherwise not entitled to
receive any funds from ecareer; (2) $25,000 of investors' proceeds was paid for his children's
tuition; (3) approximately $47,000 of investors' funds were dissipated through ATM
withdrawals; (4) approximately $135,000 of investors' proceeds was spent on motorsports
related expenditures; (5) approximately $175,000 of investors' proceeds was spent on American
Express charges by Carla Azzata for personal expenses such as gym membership fees, pet food
and services, retail merchants (such as Macy's, Bloomingdales, Nordstrom and Target), home
goods, medical and dental services, restaurants and dining, groceries, utilities
,
instzrance, and
travel and entertainment; and (6) at least $50,000 of investors' proceeds was spent at various
retail merchants and on airfare, a cnlise and travel expenses.
V.   CLAIM S FO R RELIEF
COUNT l
FR AUD IN VIOLATION OF
SECTION 17(a)(1) OF THE SECURITIES ACT
(Against AII Defendants)
63.   The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
64.   Beginning no later than August 2010, the Defendants, 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, knowingly, willfully or recklessly employed
devices, schem es or artifices to defraud.
20

65.   By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly and indirectly violated, and
unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77q(a)(1).
COUNT 11
FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 17(a)(2) OF THE SECURITIES ACT
(Against AII Defendants)
66.   The Com mission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
67.   Beginning no later than August 2010, the Defendants, directly and indirectly, by
use of the means or instruments of transportation or comm unication in interstate com merce and
by the use of the m ails, in the offer or sale of seclzrities obtained m oney or property by means of
untl'ue statem ents of m aterial facts and om issions to state material facts necessary to make the
statem ents m ade, in the light of the circumstances under which they were m ade, not misleading.
68.   By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly and indirectly violated, mld
unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77q(a)(2).
COUNT III
FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 17(a)(3) OF THE SECURITIES ACT
(Against AII Defenàants)
69.   The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
Beginning no later than August 2010, the Defendants, directly and indirectly, by
use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce and
by the use of the mails, in the offer or sale of securities engaged in transactions, practices and
21

courses of business which have operated as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers and prospective
purchasers of such securities.
By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly and indirectly violated, and
unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77q(a)(3).
COUNT IV
FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(b) AND RULE 10b-5 OF THE
EXCHANGE ACT
(Against All Defendants)
The Comm ission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 tllrough 62 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
73.   Beginning no later than August 2010, the Defendants, directly and indirectly, by
use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and of the mails in connection
with the purchase or sale of securities, knowingly, willfully or recklessly: (a) employed devices,
schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material facts and/or omitted to
state m aterial facts necessary in order to m ake the statem ents made, in light of the circumstances
tmder which they were made, not misleading', and/or (c) engaged in acts, practices and courses of
business which operated as a fraud upon the ptzrchasers of such securities.
74.   By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly and indirectly violated, and
tmless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. j 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. j 240.10b-5, thereunder.
22

COUNT V
UNLAW FULLY O PEM TING AS A BROKER-DEALER
W ITHOUT REGISTERING W ITH THE COM M ISSION
IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 15(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT
(Against Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks)
75.   The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
76.   Beginning no later than August 2010, Defendants Esposito, Devito, and Birks,
acted as broker or dealers and have made use of the mails and other means or instnzments of
interstate comm erce to effect transactions in secmities, or to induce or attempt to induce the
purchase or
registered with the Commission in accordance with Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. j 78o(b).
sale of securities, without being associated with a broker or dealer that was
77.   By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Esposito, Devito, and Birks directly and
indirectly violated, and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section
15(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. j 78o(a).
COUNT VI
SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5(a) AND
5(c) OF THE SECURITIES ACT
(Against AIl Defendants)
The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of its Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
79.   No registration statem ent was tiled or in effect with the Comm ission ptlrsuant to
the Sectlrities Act with respect to the securities offerings and transactions described in this
Complaint, and no exemption from registration exists with respect to these seclzrities and
transactions.

80.  Beginning no later than August 2010, the Defendants, directly and indirectly: (a)
made use of the means or instrum ents of transportation or com munication in interstate comm erce
or of the mails to sell securities, through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise; (b)
carried securities or causing such securities to be carried through the mails or in interstate
commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, for the purpose of sale or delivery
after sale; or (c) made use of the means or instruments of transportation or commtmication in
interstate comm erce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use or m edium of
any prospectus or othem ise, without a registration statement having been filed or being in effect
with the Comm ission as to such securities.
81.  By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants violated,and unless enjoined, are
reasonably likely to continue to violate Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. jj
77e(a) and 77e(c).
COUNT W I
FALSE REPORTS IN VIOLATION 13(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 12b-
20. 13a-1. AND 13a-13 THEREUNDER
(SOLELY AGAINST DEFENDANT ECAREER HOLDINGS)
82.   The Com mission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of its Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
83.   After the com pany's reverse merger in 2013, Defendant ecareer Holdings
violated Section 13(a) and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 of the Exchange Act, failed to timely
and acclzrately tile annual and quarterly reports with the Cornmission regarding, nm ong other
things, its assets, liabilities, and related party descriptions and transactions; omitting infonnation
necessary to make the required information, in the light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; and by filing or causing to be filed with the Commission materially
false and m isleading tinancial statem ents.
24

84.   By reason of the foregoing, Defendantecareer Holdings violated, and unless
enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate Section l 3(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
j 78m(a), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. jj 240.12b-20, 240.13a-1,
and 240.13a-13.
COUNT VIll
SECTION 20(a) - CONTROL PERSON LIABILITY - LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS
BY ECAREER HOLDINGS AND ECAREER. INC. OF THE EXCHANGE A CT
(SOLELY AGAINST DEFENDANT AZZATA)
85.   The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
86.   Beginning no later than August 2010, Defendant Azzata has been, directly or
indirectly, a control person of ecareer Holdings and ecareer, Inc. for purposes of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. j 78t(a).
87.   After the company's reverse merger in 2013, ecareer Holdings violated Sections
10(b) and 13(a) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 of the Exchange Act.
88.  Begirming no later than August 2010, ecareer, lnc. violated Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.
89.   As a control person of ecareer Holdings and ecareer lnc., Defendant Azzata is
jointly and severally liable with and to the same extent as ecareer Holdings and ecareer Inc. for
each of their violations of the Exchange Act.
90.   By reason of the foregoing, the Defendant Azzata, directly and indirectly violated,
and unless enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. j 78t(a).

CO UNT IX
VIOLATIONS OF PRIOR ORDERS
(Against Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks)
91.   The Comm ission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this complaint
as if f'ully restated herein.
92.   On February 7, 20l 1, the Commission ordered Defendant Esposito to not
associate with any broker or dealer.In the Matter ofDean A. Esposito, Exchange Act Release
No. 63863, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14241. Esposito remains subject to the
Comm ission's broker or dealer bar.
93.   On February 7, 2011, the Comm ission ordered Defendant Devito to not associate
with any broker or dealer with the right to reapply after eighteen months. In the Matter of
Joseph Devito, Exchange Act Release No. 63864, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14242.
Devito has not successfully reapplied, so he remains
dealer bar.
subject to the Commission's broker or
94.   On February 7, 2011, the Com mission ordered Defendant Birks to not associate
with any broker or dealer. In the Matter ofFrederick J Sfr/o', Exchange Act Release No. 63862,
Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14240. Birks remains subject to the Commission's broker
or dealer bar.
95.  On August 18, 2010, final district court judgments were entered by consent
against Esposito and Birks, enjoining them from futttre violations of Section 5 of the Securities
Act and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
penuanently barring them from participating in any penny stock offering. Devito was enjoined
by final judgment on the same date from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act and Section
26

15(a) of the Exchange Act, and the court ordered a time-limited, l8-month penny stock bar
(through February 2012).
96.   By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks have violated,
and unless ordered to comply will continue to violate prior orders. Accordingly, the Court
should issue an order pursuant to Section 20(c) of the Securities Act and Section 21(e) of the
Exchange Act comm anding Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks to com ply with the prior
Orders.
COUNT X
FALSE CERTIFICATIONS IN VIOLATION OF EXCH ANGE ACT RULE 13a-14
(Solely Against Defendant Azzata)
97.   The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this complaint
as if fully restated herein.
After the company's reverse merger in 2013, Defendant Azzata in violation of
Rule 13a-14 of the Exchange Act, directly or indirectly, as an officer or director of an issuer,
falsely certified in nnnual and quarterly reports that based on his knowledge, the disclosure
reports did not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary in order to m ake the statements m ade, in light of the circlzm stances under which such
statements were m ade, not m isleading with respect to the period covered by the report.
99.   By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Azzata, directly or indirectly, violated, and
unless enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate Rule 13a-14 of the Exchange Act, 17
C.F.R. j 240.13a-14.
27

COUNT Xl
AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF SECURITIES ACT SECTION 17(a)
(Solely Against Defendant Azzata)
100.  The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this complaint
as if fully restated herein.
Beginning no later than August 2010, Defendants ecareer Holdings or ecareer,
Inc., directly and indirectly, by use of the m eans or instrum ents of transportation or
communication in interstte commerce and by use of the mails, in the offer or sale of sectzrities,
knowingly, willfully or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud', obtained
money or property by means of untrue statements of material facts and omissions to state
m aterial facts necessary to m ake the statem ents m ade, in the light of the circum stances under
which they were made, not misleading', and engaged in transactions, practices and courses of
business which have operated as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers and prospective plzrchasers of
such securities.
102.  Beginning no later than August 2010, Azzata knowingly, willfully, or recklessly
aided and abetted violations of Sections 17(a)(1), l7(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act by
Defendants ecareer Holdings or ecareer, Inc. Azzata also, directly and indirectly, had a general
awareness that he was part of an overall activity that was improper or illegal and knowingly, or
was extremely reckless in not knowing,and provided substantial assistance to violations of
Section 17(a) of the Secudties Act by Defendants ecareer Holdings and ecareer, Inc.
103.  By reason of the foregoing acts, Azzata aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, is
reasonably likely to continue to aid and abet violations of Sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and
17(a)(3) of the Sectlrities Act by Defendants ecareer Holdings and ecareer, lnc.
28

CO UNT XII
AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF 10(b), 13(a), AND 15(a) OF THE
EXCH ANGE ACT AND RULES THEREUNDER
(Solely Against Defendant Azzata)
104.  The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this complaint
as if fully restated herein.
105.  After the company's reverse merger in 2013, ecareer Holdings violated Sections
10(b) and 13(a) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 of the Exchange Act.
106.  Begimling no later than August 2010, ecareer, lnc. violated Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.
107.  Beginning no later than August 2010, Defendants Esposito, Devito, and Birks,
acted as brokers or dealers and made use of the m ails and other m eans or instnzm ents of
interstate commerce to effect transactions in securities, or to induce or atlempt to induce the
purchase or sale of securities, without being associated with a broker or dealer that was
registered with the Commission in accordance with Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. j 78o(b).
108.  Beginning no later than August 20 l 0, Azzata knowingly, willfully, or recklessly
aided and abetted violations of the Exchange Act by Defendants ecareer Holdings, ecareer, lnc.,
Esposito, Devito, or Birks.
was part of an overall activity that was improper or illegal and knowingly, or was extrem ely
reckless in not knowing, and provided substantial assistance to violations of the Exchange Act by
Defendants ecareer Holdings, ecareer, lnc., Esposito, Devito, and Birks.
Azzata also, directly and indirectly, had a general awareness that he
29

109.  By reason of the foregoing acts, Azzata aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, is
reasonably likely to continue to aid and abet violations of the Exchange Act by Defendants
ecareer Holdings, ecareer, Inc., Esposito, Devito, and Birks.
RELIEF REOUESTED
W HEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court:
1.
Declaratory Relief
Declaze, detennine and find that the Defendants committed the violations of the federal
sectlrities laws alleged in this Complaint.
II.
Temporarv Restraininz Order. Preliminarv and Permanent lniunctive Relief
lssue a Temporary Restraining Order, a Preliminary lnjunction and Permanent Injunction
restraining and enjoining'. (a) Defendants ecareer Holdings, ecareer, lnc., Azzata, Esposito,
Devito and Birks from violating 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; (b) Defendant ecareer Holdings from
violating Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder; (c)
Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks from violating Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act; and
(d) Defendant Azzata from: (i) violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-14, (ii) aiding and abetting
ecareer's violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, (iii) aiding and abetting ecareer's
violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and
13a-13 thereunder, (iv) aiding and abetting Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks violations of
Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and (v) violating Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for
30

ecareer's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20,
13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder.
111.
Diseoreem ent
Issue an Order directing the Defendants and Relief Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten
protits or proceeds received from investors as a result of the acts and/or courses of conduct
complained of herein, with prejudgment interest thereon.
1V.
Civil M onev Penalties
lssue an Order directing the Defendants to pay civil m oney penalties plzrsuant to Section
20(d) of the Sectlrities Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77t(d), and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
j 78(d).
V.
Pennv Stock Bars
Issue an Order pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Sectlrities Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77t(g), and
Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. j 78u(d)(6), pennanently barring Defendants
Azzata and Devito from participating in any offering of a penny stock.
VI.
O fficer and Director Bar & Bar from V otine ecareer's Stock
Issue an Order: (a) temporarily, preliminary and permanently barring Defendant Azzata
from voting the shares of ecareer Holdings or ecareer, lnc. he owns or controls, directly or
indirectly, and serving as an officer or director of any public company pursuant to Section 20(e)
31

of the Securities Act, Sections 21(d)(2) and 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Section 305(b)(5)
of the Sarbanes-oxley Act.
Vll.
Accountinzs
lssue an Order requiring swom accountings by the Defendants and Relief Defendants.
VIll.
Orders
lssue alz order pursuant to Section 20(c) of the Securities act and Section 21(e) of the
Exchange Act comm anding Esposito, Devito and Birks to com ply with the prioç Orders.
IX.
Asset Freeze
lssue an Order freezing the assets of the Defendants and Relief Defendants until further
Order of the Court.
X.
Records Preservation and Expedited Discoverv
Issue an Order requiring the 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.
XI.
Further Relief
Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
32

M I.
Retention of Jurisdiction
Further, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this
action in order to implement and carly out the tenus of a1l orders and decrees that may hereby be
entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the Comm ission for additional relief
within the jurisdidion of this Court.
Dated: April 7, 2015Respectfully subm itted
,
,.
By: .
Christopher . M artin
Senior Trial Cotmsel
Arizona BarNo. 018486
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6386
E-mail: [email protected]
Linda Schmidt
Senior Counsel
Florida Bar No. 0156337
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6315
E-mail: [email protected]
Attomeys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM M ISSION
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800
M iam i, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 982-6300
Facsimile: (305) 536-4154
33

Dellïd
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SO UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

FILED by D.C.

P ? ï !) 7 2 2 1 5

11!2k '11 l-- '' '-: E-.' (%.ti r'' kr/'i. t . 1..6% F-'1 I 2' bî '1 (:''.;/ I 7 'l2 i7EE)''
q? j k .- F ? jk 1. J û ' * D 1 :3. -1 C h '( '? . .. . . w) . .z .
Sp i ' ) c' ' f : t. .p. - Ik! ! .5'%..6. f $/ 1 !

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM M ISSION,

1 5Pl
aintiff,

V.

ECAREER HOLDINGS, INC., ECAREER, INC.,

JOSEPH J. AZZATA, DEAN A. ESPOSITO,
JO SEPH DEVITO , and FREDERICK J. BIRK S,

Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

VIPER ASSET M ANAGEM ENT, LLC,

Esro CONSULTIN G  LLC,
DJc CONSULTIN G LL ,C
J & D M AQKETIN ,G LLC,
GRYPHON ASSET M ANAGEM ENT, LLC, and

CARLA AZZATA,

)
)
)
)
)Relief Defendants.
)

- 8 0 4 4 6

-CtV-- COHN

' --  ..- %RWJ,%V

COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

Plaintiff Seclzrities and Exchange Commission (ttcommission'') alleges as follows:

INTRO DUCTION

The Commission tiles this emergency action to stop an ongoing fraud that has

from at least August 2010 through the present, which defrauded m ore than 400

1.

operated

investors out of more than $1 1 million and continues to defraud new and existing investors.

Defendants ecareer Holdings, lnc., ecareer, lnc. (collectively, ttecareer'') and its CEO,

Defendant Joseph J. Azzata, employed Relief Defendant Viper Asset M anagement, LLC to

operate a boiler room, directed by three recidivists, Defendants Dean A. Esposito, Joseph Devito

and Frederick J. Birks who have, among other things, been barred from acting as brokers or

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 1 of 33 



dealers. The Defendants used the boiler room to cold call investors, a num ber of whom are

senior citizens, to invest in a fraudulent offering and sale of tmregistered ecareer shares.

2. To swindle more than $1 1 million from investors, Defendants ecareer Holdings,

ecareer, lnc., Azzata, Esposito, Devito and Birks (collectively çtDefendants'') canied out a

fraudulent scheme, Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks violated prior Orders prohibiting

them from selling a penny stock and acting as a broker or dealer, Defendants ecareer Holdings

and Azzata made false filings with the Commission, the Defendmlts sold unregistered shares, and

they m ade a series of m aterial misrepresentations and omissions.

First, they falsely represented that ecareer, a start-up company, would becom e

profitable by using investors' proceeds as working capital to develop its online job stafting

business. lnstead of using the funds as working capital, Defendants, nmong other things, paid

exorbitant fees to sales agents in excess of approximately 30% of the amount raised, or

approximately $3.5 million. These undisclosed fees made the Defendants' claims that investors

would profit from their investments false and misleading as a large percentage of investors'

proceeds were being diverted from the company's working capital. Additionally, these

unwarranted fees were hidden from  investors as they far exceeded the much lower amounts

represented to investors.

Second, Azzata misappropriated at least $650,000 of investors' proceeds to pay

for personal expenses such as motorsports, retail merchants, and family private school mition.

Once again, these tmwarranted diversions from ecareer's working capital made the claims that

investors would profit from the company's use of their investments as working capital false and

misleading.

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 2 of 33 



Third, the Defendants falsely claim ed that they were selling the restricted shares

only to accredited or sophisticated investors, while in reality a number of the investors they

targeted tand sold restricted shares to) were unaccredited and unsophisticated.

6. Fourth, Esposito, Devito and Birks offered and sold ecazeer's pelmy stock to

investors while concealing their significant disciplinary histories, which included, am ong other

things, broker-dealer association and penny stock bars, which prohibited them from, among other

things, offering and selling ecareer's penny stock.

Fifth, after the company's reverse merger in 2013,in ecareer's quarterly and

nnnual filings, ecareer and Azzata made further m isrepresentations by mischaracterizing the true

nature of the exorbitant fees paid to the sales agents. ecazeer's filings also falsely claim that

funds raised through the tmregistered offering were used for working capital purposes and that

sales were only made to sophisticated or accredited investors, while also concealing Azzata's

misappropriation of more than $650,000 in investor proceeds.

8. During the Commission's investigation conducted prior to iiling this Complaint,

Azzata, Esposito, Devito and Birksasserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-

incrimination to nearly every question asked by the Commission on these issues.

Through their fraudulent conduct the Defendants and Relief Defendants Viper

Asset M anagem ent, LLC, Espo Consulting, LLC, DJC Consulting, J & D M arketing, LLC,

Gryphon Asset Management, LLC and Carla Azzata (collectively, tûRelief Defendants'') received

millions of dollars of investors' proceeds. ln addition, through this misconduct: (a) Defendants

ecareer Holdings, ecareer, Inc., Azzata, Esposito, Devito and Birks violated Sections 5(a), 5(c)

and 17(a) of the Secudties Act of 1933 (Ctseclzrities Act'') and Section 10(b) of the Sectlrities

Exchange Act of 1934 (GûExchange Act'') and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; (b) Defendant ecareer

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 3 of 33 



Holdings violated Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13

thereunder; (c) Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks violated Section 15(a) Of the Exchange

Act; and (d) Defendant Azzata: (i) violated Exchange Act Rule 13a-14, (ii) aided and abetted

ecareer's violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, (iii) aided and abetted ecareer's

violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) and of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1,

and 13a-13 thereunder, (iv) aided and abetted violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act by

Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks, and (v) as a control person violated Section 20(a) of the

Exchange Act for ecareer's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and

Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. Unless restrained and enjoined, the

Defendants are reasonably likely to engage in future violations of the federal secuzities laws.

II. DEFENDANTS & RELIEF DEFENDANTS

A. D efendants

10. ecareer Holdinzs is a Boca Raton, Florida-based company, originally

incorporated in Nevada in March 2005 as Barossa Coffee Company, lnc. On August 30, 2012,

Barossa acquired the outstanding shares of ecareer, Inc., a private entity, then Barossa changed

its name to ecareer Holdings, lnc. The m erger was completed on April 1 1, 2013 and ecareer

Holdings started filing periodic reports with the Comm ission. ecareer Holdings is a penny stock

company that trades on the OTCBB with the ticker symbol ECHI. The company purports. to be

an online staffing business operated by Azzata. The company almost entirely relies on private

stock offerings to fund its operations.

1 1. ecareer, Inc. is a Boca Raton, Florida corporation, incorporated in 2009 and is a

wholly-owned subsidiary of ecareer Holdings. Azzata was the Chief Executive Officer of

4

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 4 of 33 



ecareer, Inc. W hile he was CEO, ecareer, lnc. offered securities through Private Placement

M em oranda that were purportedly only offered to accredited investors.

12. Azzata, age 55, is the controlling shareholder, Chief Executive Officer, and

Chairman of the Board of ecareer Holdings.He was a registered representative associated with

various registered broker-dealers f'rom 1994 to 2004, including several boiler rooms. He has

been the subject of FINRA and state disciplinary actions in 2002 and 2006. When the

Comm ission took Azzata's testim ony during its investigation, he asserted his Fifth Am endment

privilege against self-incrim ination to nearly all substantive questions regarding this matter.

Esposito, age 46, was the president and managing member of Viper and a director

ecareer. ecareer's corporate tilings with the State of Florida Division of Corporations disclose

that Esposito served as a director of ecareer from December 2010 through at least May 20l 1 (the

nmendment removing Esposito is not dated until Febrtzazy 2013.) Esposito was a registered

representative associated with num erous registered broker-dealers from 1991 to 2004. The

Comm ission has previously tiled two actions against him , SEC v. Dean W. Esposito, et al., Case

No. 8-80130-ClV (S.D. F1a., Feb. 7, 2008) and In the Matter ofDean A. Esposito, Exchange Act

Release No. 63863, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14241 (Feb. 7, 2011). As a result of

the Commission's actions, Esposito has been permanently enjoined and barred from participating

in any offering of a penny stock and fzom associating with any broker or dealer. He is not

registered with the Commission in any capacity. W hen the Comm ission took Esposito's

testim ony during its investigation, he asserted his Fifth Am endment privilege against self-

incrimination to nearly all substantive questions regarding this matter.

14. Devito, age 39, was a managing member of Viper and director of ecareer.

ecareer's com orate filings with the State of Florida Division of Cop orations disclose that

5

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 5 of 33 



Devito served as a director of ecareer from December 2010 through at least May 201 1 (the

amendment removing Devito is not dated until February 20l 3). Devito was fonnerly associated

with various registered broker-dealers. The Commission has previously tiled two actions against

Devito, SEC v. Joseph Devito, et al., Case No. 8-80130-CIV (S.D. F1a., Feb. 7, 2008) and In the

Matter ofloseph Devito, Exchange Act Release No. 63864, Administrative Proceeding File No.

3-14242 (Feb. 7, 2011). As a result of the Commission's actions, Devito has been enjoined and

barred from participating in any offering of a penny stock (from August 2010 through February

2012) and from associating with any broker or dealer. He is not registered with the Commission

in any capacity. W hen the Commission took Devito's testim ony during its investigation, he

asserted his Fifth Am endment privilege against self-incrimination to nearly all substantive

questions regarding this matter.

15. Birlts, age 43, was a sales agent and director of Viper and distributed a business

card that described him as a director of ecareer. Birks was a registered representative associated

with ntlmerous registered broker-dealers from 1993 to 2005, including former boiler rooms. The

Commission has previously filed two actions against Birks, SEC v. Frederick.l s/r/o-, Case No.

8-80130-ClV (S.D. Fla., Feb. 7, 2008) and In the Matter ofFrederick J fïr/o', Exchange Act

Release No. 63862, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14240 (Feb. 7, 2011). As a result of

the Commission's actions, Birks has been permanently enjoined and barred from participating in

any offering of a penny stock and from associating with any broker or dealer. He is not

registered with the Com mission in any capacity. W hen the Com mission took Birk's testim ony

dming its investigation, he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to

nearly a11 substantive questions regarding this matter.

6

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 6 of 33 



B. Relief Defendants

16. Viper was a Florida com oration fonned in 2010 with its principal place of

business in Boca Raton, Florida.Viper operated as a boiler room and its activities were directed

by barred recidivists Esposito, Devito, and Birks. In October 2014, Esposito, Viper's president

Viper has never been registered with theand managing member, voluntarily dissolved the entity.

Commission in any capacity. W ithout any legitimate basis, Viper received investors' proceeds

emanating from the Defendants' securities fraud.

Espo Consultinz is a Florida limited liability company formed in 2009 with its

principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. Esposito is its m anaging mem ber. Esposito

received transaction-based compensation through Espo Consulting for sales of ecareer's stock.

Espo Consulting has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. W ithout any

legitimate basis, Espo Consulting received investors' proceeds emanating from the Defendants'

securities fraud.

J & D M arketine is a Florida lim ited liability company form ed in 2009 with its

principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. Devito is its sole officer, director and

managing member, and he received transaction-based compensation through J & D M arketing

for sales of ecareer's stock. J & D M arketing has never been registered with the Commission in

arly capacity. W ithout any legitim ate basis, J & D M arketing received investors' proceeds

emanating from the Defendants' securities fraud.

19. DJC Consultina is a Florida limited liability company formed in 2008 that had

its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. Esposito and Devito were its managing

members, and it was administratively dissolved in 2009 for failttre to file annual reports.

Esposito and Devito each received transaction-based compensation tlzrough DJC Consulting for

7

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 7 of 33 



sales of ecareer stock. DJC Consulting has never been registered with the Commission in any

capacity. W ithout any legitimate basis, DJC Consulting received investors' proceeds emanating

from the Defendants' securities fraud.

20. G rvphon Asset M anazem ent is a Florida lim ited liability com pany form ed in

2004 with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida. Birks is its sole officer, director

and m anaging member.

sales of ecareer stock.

Birks received transaction-based com pensation through this entity for

Gryphon A sset M anagem ent has never been registered with the

Comm ission in any capacity. W ithout any legitim ate basis, Gryphon Asset M anagem ent

received investors' proceeds emanating from the Defendants' securities fraud.

Carla Azzata, 46, is Azzata's wife.She received payments from ecareer but has

not provided any senices to it.Carla Azzata has never been registered with the Commission in

any capacity. W ithout any legitim ate basis, she received investors' proceeds emanating from the

Defendants' securities fraud.

111. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d) and

22(a) of the Securities Act,15 U.S.C. jj 77t(b), 77t(d) and 77v(a); and Sections 21(d), 2 1(e),

and 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. jj 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa(a).

23. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and Relief Defendants

and venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because m any of the acts and transactions

constituting the violations alleged in this complaint occurred in this District. M oreover, Azzata,

Carla Azzata, and Esposito reside in the Southem District of Florida and ecareer and Viper had

their principal offices in this District which the individual Defendants worked from.

Furthermore, during the period of the misconduct Birks resided in the District.

8

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 8 of 33 



24. ln cozmection with the conduct alleged in the complaint, Defendants and Relief

Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert with others, m ade use of the means or

instnunentalities of interstate com merce or the mails.

lV. BACKG RO UND OF ECAREER AND ITS RELATIONSH IP W ITH VIPER

25. Azzata founded ecareer in 2009 and serves as its CEO and director. He also

controls and has signatory power over its bank accounts and signed its corporate filings.

26. From approximately December 2010 tmtil their resignations, Esposito and Devito

served as directors of ecareer and principals of Viper.

Prior to their association with ecareer, Azzata, Esposito, Devito and Birks had

been associated with M edical Connections, Inc., an entity that also purported to provide online

staffing resources. In 2010, the Alabnm a Secm ities Commission entered a cease-and-desist

order against M edical Connections Holdings, lnc. for the sale of unregistered securities. In the

Matter of Medical Connections Holdings, Inc., et J/a, Alabama Admin. Order No. CD-2010-

0062, Cease and Desist Order, December 25, 2010. Soon thereafter, ecareer began operating

from M edical Colmections' same office address in Boca Raton.

28. Starting approximately August 2010, ecareer engaged Viper to sell

tmregistered, restricted shares of its stock. Viper and its sales agents conducted the majority of

investor solicitations. In general, after Viper and its sales agents convinced investors to invest,

investors completed the sales transaction by sending their investments to ecareer for the issuance

of unzegistezed, restricted shazes. In turn, ecareer sent ftmds via check or wire to Viper and its

Sales agents to pay Sales fees.

9

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 9 of 33 



A. Filines w ith the Com m ission

29. ln 2013, after ecareer completed a reverse m erger with a Nevada shell company,

Barossa Coffee Company, ecareer began filing periodic reports with the Comm ission. At the

time of closing the reverse merger, ecareer Holdings' board of directors consisted of Azzata and

one other individual and the Board appointed Azzata the company's chief executive officer.

30. ln its first ammal report on Fonn 10-K filed after the reverse merger (for the tiscal

year ending June 30, 2013), ecareer and Azzata disclosed that Azzata was the company's CEO

and Chainnan of the Board and had voting control over the company. The tiling further

disclosed that the company had revenue of just $9,092 for the fiscal year ending in June 2013

mld that it was subject to a going concern qualitkation. Moreover,the 2013 Fonn 10-K

purportedly disclosed the nmotmt of compensation that Azzata received. On October 4, 2013,

Azzata executed the company's 2013 Fonu 10-K as its CEO and Chairman of the Board and

certitied the accuracy of this tiling ptlrsuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act of 2002.

31. In its first quarter of tiscal year 2014 report filed on Fonn 10-Q (for the quarter

ending September 30, 2013), the company and Azzata disclosed that ecareer was selling

tmregistered shares. On November 14, 2013, Azzata executed this tiling as the CEO and

certified the accuracy of this tiling pursuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act. The first quarter 2014

Form 10-Q claimed that all sales of the unregistered shares were to sophisticated or accredited

investors, no shares were sold in the form of a general solicitation, and all funds raised were used

for working capital.

32. In its second quarter of fiscal year 2014 report filed on Form 10-Q (for the quarter

ending December 31, 2013), the company and Azzata made similar disclosers about ecareer

selling unregistered shares. On February 14, 2014, Azzata executed this tiling as the CEO and

10

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 10 of 33 



certified the accuracy of this tiling pursuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act. The second quarter 2014

Form 10-Q claimed that all sales of the unregistered shares were to sophisticated or accredited

investors, no shares were sold in the fonn of a general solicitation, and all ftmds raised were used

for working capital.

ln its third quarter of tiscal year 2014 report tiled on Form 10-Q (for the quarter

ending March 30, 2014), the company and Azzata made similar disclosers about ecareer's sales

of unregistered shares. On M ay 15, 2014, Azzata executed this filing as the CEO and certified

the accuracy of this filing ptlrsuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act. The third qum er 2014 Fonn 10-

Q claimed that a1l sales of the unregistered shares were to sophisticated or accredited investors,

no shares were sold in the form of a general solicitation, and a1l funds raised were used for

working capital.

ln its 2014 annual report filed on Fonn 10-K (for the fiscal year ending Jtme 30,

2014), ecareer and Azzata disclosed that Azzata was the company's CEO, Chainnan of the

Board, and Principal Finmwial Ofticer, and had voting control over the company. The company

further disclosed that it had revenue of just $70,1 16 for the fiscal year ending in Jtme 2014 and

that it was subject to a going concern qualitication.Moreover, the Fonu 2014 10-K purportedly

disclosed the nmount of compensation that Azzata received. On Septem ber 29, 2014, Azzata

executed the company's 2014 Fonn 10-K as its CEO, Chairm an of the Board and Principal

Financial Officer and certified the accuracy of this filing pursuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act.

ln its first quarter of tiscal year 2015 report on Fonn 10-Q (for the quarter ending

September 30, 2014), the company and Azzata made similar disclosers about ecareer's sales of

unregistered shares. On November 14, 2014, Azzata executed this filing as the CEO and

certified the accuracy of this tiling plzrsuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act.The first quarter 2015

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 11 of 33 



Fonn 10-Q claimed that a1l sales of the unregistered shares were to sophisticated or accredited

investors, no shares were sold in the form of a general solicitation, and all funds raised were used

for working capital.

36. In its second quarter of fiscal year 2015 report tiled on Fonu 10-Q (for the quarter

ending December 31, 2014), the company and Azzata made similar disclosers about ecareer

continuing to sell tmregistered shares. On Febnlary 13, 2015, Azzata executed this filing as the

CEO and certitied the accuracy of this filing pursuant to the Sarbanes-oxley Act. The second

quarter Form 2015 10-Q claimed that all sales of the unregistered shares were to sophisticated or

accredited investors, no shares were sold in the form of a general solicitation, and all funds raised

were used for working capital.

V. SCHEM E TO DEFR AUD ECAREER INVESTORS

Azzata, on behalf of ecareer, hired Viper,Esposito, Devito, Birks and their

com panies to raise capital by selling ecareer stock. Viper's offices were located in the sam e

Boca Raton building as ecareer.N otably, Azzata's ecareer oftice was physically located within

Viper's oftice suite, and next to Esposito, Devito and Birks' oftices. Viper and its principals

operated a phone room and hired and supervised sales agents to solicit investors to plzrchase

unregistered shares of ecareer.

38. Esposito, Devito, and Birks could not participate in the offering of a penny stock

or were prohibited from earning transaction-based compensation from the sale of ecareer's

stock, since they had been barred from acting as a broker or dealer or participating in any

offering of a penny stock. In an attempt to get around these prohibitions and to disguise the true

nature of the compensation they would receive from selling ecareer's stock, Esposito, Devito,

and Birks and their companies entered into Advisory Agreements with ecazeer (many signed by

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 12 of 33 



Azzata) that attempted to categorize the compensation they would receive as an advisory fee.

These advisory agreem ents also provided for a finder's fee of 10% of the dollar am ount of the

sectzrities purchased by accredited investors (plus a 3% expense allowalwe) if the advisor

introduced to the company a prospective accredited investor. M oreover, the advisory agreem ents

provided that Esposito, Devito, and Birks and their companies would assist ecareer in preparing

a business plan and Private Placement Memorandum (çTPM'') for submission to prospective

investors.

39. However in reality, and in direct contravention of the Orders prohibiting them

from once again engaging in this type of misconduct, Esposito, Devito, Birks and their entities

received transaction-based compensation or sales comm issions from ecareer for the sale of its

securities. Viper invoices attempt to conceal the true natlzre of these paym ents by describing the

transaction-based or sales comm issions as tf nder's fees'' for each customer of 13% , in addition

to ttadvisory fees'' and çûconsulting fees,'' together totaling a fee of about 30% of the nmount

raised from investors.

40. M oreover, ecareer sold stock to non-accredited investors, so tinder's fees were

not available on these transactions. Furtherm ore, the extensive involvement of Esposito, Devito,

and Birks in these sales transactions went far beyond merely acting as finders. In reality, they

solicited and sold shares to investors and acted as the prim ary, if not exclusive, interface between

ecareer and its investors.

Notably, all the individual defendants asserted their Fifth Am endment privilege

when questioned about the services Viper, Esposito, Devito or Birks provided to ecareer

(including the solicitation of investors) and the fees they received.

13

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 13 of 33 



42. Additionally, the PPM S that Azzata issued on ecareer's behalf, and that Esposito,

Devito, and Birks helped prepare are replete with falsehoods. Typical versions of the ecareer

PPMS represented, among other things, that ecareer: (a) may retain the services of licensed

broker/dealers who ecareer will pay comm issions that will not exceed 10% of the proceeds

raised by the broker/dealer', (b) may use tinders who ecareer will pay a fee not to exceed 10% of

gross proceeds', (c) will not pay commissions to any ofticers or directors who sell securities; and

(d) will only offer securities to accredited investors. These material representations were false

since, among other reasons: (a) ecareer used unlicensed brokers and paid commissions that

exceeded 10% of the nmount raised from investors', (b) ecareer paid fees to finders in excessive

of 10% and they did not pay legitimate finders' fees; (c) ecareer paid commissions to officers or

directors who sold secmities; and (d) the Defendants offered and sold securities to unaccredited

investors.

A. The Fraudulent Offer and Sale of ecareer Stock

43. Viper's sales agents, including Defendants Esposito, Devito, and Birks, as well as

agents employed directly by ecareer, made cold calls to solicit potential investors, m any of

whom were elderly and unsophisticated and unaccredited. Viper offered investors restricted

shares of ecareer stock, at prices between $0. 10 and a $1 per share, telling investors they could

sell the stock for a considerable protit. Viper sales agents told ilw estors that ecareer would use

their funds for business development, including the development of a website called

tçopenreq.com'' and that ecareer would make money selling job advertisements and job

placement packages to companies in the medical tield and other industries. Devito, Esposito

and Birks also told investors that sales fees were minimal or did not discuss fees at a11 and did

not infonn investors that Devito, Esposito and Birks were barred from the securities industry.

14

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 14 of 33 



44. ecareer also offered prospective investors totzrs of their office in Florida where

Viper and ecareer company representatives, including Esposito, Devito, Birks, and Azzata, gave

investor presentations. Several individuals invested after attending ecareer seminars in New

York and New Jersey, at which Esposito, Devito, Birks and Azzata solicited investm ents and

directly m et with prospective investors.

45. lnvestors nationwide since at least August 2010, were solicited by Azzata,

Esposito, Devito and Birks. Som e investors knew Azzata from his prior aftiliation with M edical

Connections and expected to recoup their prior investment funds. M any investors were

tmsophisticated, passive investors who relied on their sales agents (principally Esposito, Devito

and Birks) for updates on ecareer's business. In addition, Azzata provided updates to investors.

46. Esposito, Devito, Birks and Azzata touted ecareer as a protitable investment that

was raising investor funds to develop and grow its online medical staffing business. Devito also

told investors that ecareer stock was a good value and would likely rise in price to $6 to $8 a

share, with comparable companies trading at $12 per share. In addition, Birks told another

investor in approxim ately November 2012, that he was contident ecareer's stock would double

within four to six months, and in approxim ately Decem ber 2012 he told another investor the

stock would increase up to $30 a share.

47. Esposito, Devito, Birks and Azzata, along with other sales agents, sent news

articles to investors touting ecareer's success, its internet presence and business awards. The

sales agents told investors that ecareer would use their ftmds for ecareer's working capital,

business development, expansion and marketing its job placement services.

48. After Viper sales agents, and other sales agents, contacted investors via cold calls

or during ecareer and Azzata's in-person seminars or meetings, Azzata, Esposito, Devito, Birks

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 15 of 33 



and sales agents sent PPMS and marketing materials to potential investors (via emails, FedEx and

in-person) that touted ecareer's success and its potential in the online stafting industry.

Investors received ecareer PPM S and stock purchase agreem ents, which typically included a

cover letler signed by Azzata.

B. M aterial M isrepresentations and Om issions to ecareer lnvestors

Undisclosed Exorbitant Sales Fees and M isrepresentations About the

Use of Investors' Proceeds

Azzata, Esposito, Devito and Birks made material m isrepresentations and

omissions to investors who they solicited to ptlrchase ecareer stock through cold-calls,

roadshows, and in-person m eetings. Am ong these m aterial m isrepresentations, Azzata, Esposito,

Devito and Birks falsely told investors that purchasing ecareer shares was a good investment

and investor ftmds would be used for ecareer's business development and working capital when,

in reality, ecareer paid fees of approximately 30% to its sales agents. Azzata also materially

omitted that he had m isappropriated investor ftmds forlavish personal expenses. Esposito,

Devito and Birks would, if they mentioned sales fees at all, falsely tell prospective investors that

sales fees would be m inim al or not exceed 10% of investors' funds, and they distributed multiple

versions of ecareer's PPM S to investors that falsely stated fees to licensed brokers or dealers

would not exceed 10% of investors' funds, when they knew that ecareer paid much higher sales

fees and they knew they could not receive broker or dealer fees, since they had been prohibited

from acting as a broker or dealer.

2. ecareer Used Unregistered Brokers and Dealers, Concealed Brokers'

Prior Disciplinarv Historv. lndusta  and Pennv Stock Bars

50. Esposito, Devito and Birks had been barred from participating in pelmy stock

offerings and from the securities industry, yet they each distributed PPM S that stated that

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 16 of 33 



comm issions would only be paid to licensed broker-dealers. Hence, they knew that they could

not receive fees since they were not licensed.

51. Furthermore, Esposito, Devito and Birks solicited investors to purchase ecareer

pelmy stock, representing they were offering the investm ents on behalf of ecareer, while

knowing: they had prior disciplinary history, had been previously barred from association with

any broker or dealer and were subject to district court orders barring them from participation in

penny stock offerings. Nonetheless, they did not disclose this negative and material information

to investors. Moreover, ecareer and Azzata omitted to disclose that Esposito, Devito and Birks

were barred by the Com mission from association with any broker or dealer or from engaging in

penny stock offerings.

ecareer Tareeted Unaccredited and Unsophisticated Investors

52. ecareer's PPMS land as discussed below, the company's periodic filings) also

m aterially misrepresented that sales of restricted shares would only be made to accredited or

sophisticated investors. Azzata, Esposito, Devito mld Birks offered and sold ecareer shares to at

least several unaccredited and tmsophisticated investors. ln addition, they targeted senior

citizens, especially older senior citizens, as at least 38 of the investors in the fraudulent,

tmregistered offering were ages 80 or older and at least 20 were over 85 years old.

4. The Defendants M isappropriated Investor Proceeds

53. Contrary to the Defendants' representations made to investors: (1) approximately

$3.5 million, or 30% of investor funds was paid as sales fees, including to Viper and former

ecareer directors Esposito and Devito; and (2) Azzata and his family misappropriated

approximately $650,000 of investor proceeds, including $47,000 in ATM cash withdrawals,

$135,000 for motorsports related expenditures, $88,000 to Carla Azzata, $175,000 in American

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 17 of 33 



Express charges by Carla Azzata, $25,000 in school tuition for Azzata's children, and over

$59,000 at various retail merchants.

5. M ateriallv False Statem ents in ecareer's Periodic Filinas

54. ecareer and Azzata m aterially m isrepresented key inform ation about the

company's directors, their compensation, and omitted to state material facts in its quarterly and

annual tilings with the Com mission.

55. In its Forms 10-K for the years ending

Azzata failed to disclose the true nature of Azzata's

misappropriated more than $650,000 of investors' proceeds. Moreover, they also misrepresented

that payments to third-parties were for titinder,'' consultant and advisor services. In reality,

June 30, 2013 and 2014, ecareer and

compensation and that he had

ecareer was paying Viper, Esposito, Devito, Birks and their consulting companies for selling

unregistered ecazeer securities.

56. In its Forms 10-Q made during tiscal years 2014 and 2015, ecareer and Azzata

further m isrepresented material infonnation about its unregistered sales of equity securities and

use of proceeds. Those tilings falsely state that: (1) ftmds raised were being used for working

capital puposes; (2)sales were made to sophisticated oraccredited investors; and (3) the

company did not sell securities by any form of general solicitation or general advertising. As

further discussed above, these statements are false and m isleading.

C. The Continuinz Offer and Sale of ecareer's Stock

57. ecareer continues to solicit investors to purchase its urlregistered stock and

receive investor proceeds. For exnmple, from March 2-16, 2015, ecareer deposited checks from

8 investors totaling $21,000 to purchase unregistered ecareer shares. Even after Viper was

dissolved, ecareer has continued to solicit and take investments from investors.

18

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 18 of 33 



D. Azzata Controls ecareer H oldinas and ecareer. Inc.

58. Azzata controls ecareer Holdings through his stock ownership, his execution of

the company's filings, his executive positions, and his position as Chainnan of the Board. By

virtue of his control over ecareer Holdings, Azzata also controls, ecareer, lnc., which is ecareer

Holdings wholly-owned subsidiary. Azzata's control over these entities, allows him to control

their general affairs and the specitic policies that ecareer Holdings and ecareer, Inc. have used,

and continue to use, to violate the federal securities laws.

E. Defendants and Relief Defendants Received Investors' Funds

59. W ithout any legitim ate basis, each of the Defendants and Relief Defendants

received investors' proceeds em anating from the Defendants' securities fraud.

60. From August 2010 through the present, ecareer has raised approximately $1 1

million from m ore than 400 investors who invested in ecareer's stock or warrants.

61. From the investors' proceeds, approximately 30% or $3.5 million has been paid

out in what were in reality transaction-based commissions. A few exmnples: (1) more than

$900,000 of investors' proceeds was paid to J & D Marketing, which is controlled by Devito; (2)

more than $880,000 of investors' proceeds was paid to Espo Consulting, which is controlled by

Esposito; (3) more than $270,000 of investors' proceeds was paid to Gryphon Asset

Management, which is controlled by Birks; (4) $30,000 of investors' proceeds was paid to DJC

Consulting, which is controlled by Esposito and Devito; (5) $28,000 of investors' proceeds was

paid directly to Esposito; (6) $28,000 of investors' proceeds was paid directly to Devito; (6)

$8,000 of investors' proceeds was paid directly to Birks', and (7) approximately $400,000 of

investors' proceeds was paid directly to Viper (Viper also paid in the aggregate from this and

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 19 of 33 



other securities solicitations hundreds of thousands of dollars to Gryphon Asset M anagement
, J

& D M arketing, Espo Consulting, DJC Consulting, Birks, Devito, and Esposito).

Fxom the investors' proceeds, at least $650,000 was misappropriated by Azzata.

A few examples: (1) $88,000 of investors' proceeds was paid directly to Carla Azzata, Azzata's

wife, who did not work for or provide any services for ecreer and was otherwise not entitled to

receive any funds from ecareer; (2) $25,000 of investors' proceeds was paid for his children's

tuition; (3) approximately $47,000 of investors' funds were dissipated through ATM

withdrawals; (4) approximately $135,000 of investors' proceeds was spent on motorsports

related expenditures; (5) approximately $175,000 of investors' proceeds was spent on American

Express charges by Carla Azzata for personal expenses such as gym membership fees, pet food

and services, retail merchants (such as Macy's, Bloomingdales, Nordstrom and Target), home

goods, medical and dental services, restaurants and dining, groceries, utilities, instzrance, and

travel and entertainment; and (6) at least $50,000 of investors' proceeds was spent at various

retail merchants and on airfare, a cnlise and travel expenses.

V. CLAIM S FO R RELIEF

COUNT l

FR AUD IN VIOLATION OF

SECTION 17(a)(1) OF THE SECURITIES ACT

(Against AII Defendants)

63. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

64. Beginning no later than August 2010, the Defendants, 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, knowingly, willfully or recklessly employed

devices, schem es or artifices to defraud.

20

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 20 of 3365. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly and indirectly violated, and

unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities

Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77q(a)(1).

COUNT 11

FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 17(a)(2) OF THE SECURITIES ACT

(Against AII Defendants)

66. The Com mission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

67. Beginning no later than August 2010, the Defendants, directly and indirectly, by

use of the means or instruments of transportation or comm unication in interstate com merce and

by the use of the m ails, in the offer or sale of seclzrities obtained m oney or property by means of

untl'ue statem ents of m aterial facts and om issions to state material facts necessary to make the

statem ents m ade, in the light of the circumstances under which they were m ade, not misleading.

68. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly and indirectly violated, mld

unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities

Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77q(a)(2).

COUNT III

FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 17(a)(3) OF THE SECURITIES ACT
(Against AII Defenàants)

69. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

Beginning no later than August 2010, the Defendants, directly and indirectly, by

use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce and

by the use of the mails, in the offer or sale of securities engaged in transactions, practices and

21

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 21 of 33 



courses of business which have operated as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers and prospective

purchasers of such securities.

By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly and indirectly violated, and

unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities

Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77q(a)(3).

COUNT IV

FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(b) AND RULE 10b-5 OF THE
EXCHANGE ACT

(Against All Defendants)

The Comm ission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 tllrough 62 of this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

73. Beginning no later than August 2010, the Defendants, directly and indirectly, by

use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and of the mails in connection

with the purchase or sale of securities, knowingly, willfully or recklessly: (a) employed devices,

schemes or artifices to defraud; (b) made untrue statements of material facts and/or omitted to

state m aterial facts necessary in order to m ake the statem ents made, in light of the circumstances

tmder which they were made, not misleading', and/or (c) engaged in acts, practices and courses of

business which operated as a fraud upon the ptzrchasers of such securities.

74. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly and indirectly violated, and

tmless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,

15 U.S.C. j 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. j 240.10b-5, thereunder.

22

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 22 of 33 



COUNT V

UNLAW FULLY O PEM TING AS A BROKER-DEALER

W ITHOUT REGISTERING W ITH THE COM M ISSION

IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 15(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

(Against Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks)

75. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

76. Beginning no later than August 2010, Defendants Esposito, Devito, and Birks,

acted as broker or dealers and have made use of the mails and other means or instnzments of

interstate comm erce to effect transactions in secmities, or to induce or attempt to induce the

purchase or

registered with the Commission in accordance with Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, 15

U.S.C. j 78o(b).

sale of securities, without being associated with a broker or dealer that was

77. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Esposito, Devito, and Birks directly and

indirectly violated, and unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section

15(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. j 78o(a).

COUNT VI

SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5(a) AND
5(c) OF THE SECURITIES ACT

(Against AIl Defendants)

The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of its Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

79. No registration statem ent was tiled or in effect with the Comm ission ptlrsuant to

the Sectlrities Act with respect to the securities offerings and transactions described in this

Complaint, and no exemption from registration exists with respect to these seclzrities and

transactions.

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 23 of 33 



80. Beginning no later than August 2010, the Defendants, directly and indirectly: (a)

made use of the means or instrum ents of transportation or com munication in interstate comm erce

or of the mails to sell securities, through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise; (b)

carried securities or causing such securities to be carried through the mails or in interstate

commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, for the purpose of sale or delivery

after sale; or (c) made use of the means or instruments of transportation or commtmication in

interstate comm erce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use or m edium of

any prospectus or othem ise, without a registration statement having been filed or being in effect

with the Comm ission as to such securities.

81. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants violated,and unless enjoined, are

reasonably likely to continue to violate Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. jj

77e(a) and 77e(c).

COUNT W I

FALSE REPORTS IN VIOLATION 13(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULES 12b-
20. 13a-1. AND 13a-13 THEREUNDER

(SOLELY AGAINST DEFENDANT ECAREER HOLDINGS)

82. The Com mission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of its Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

83. After the com pany's reverse merger in 2013, Defendant ecareer Holdings

violated Section 13(a) and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 of the Exchange Act, failed to timely

and acclzrately tile annual and quarterly reports with the Cornmission regarding, nm ong other

things, its assets, liabilities, and related party descriptions and transactions; omitting infonnation

necessary to make the required information, in the light of the circumstances under which they

were made, not misleading; and by filing or causing to be filed with the Commission materially

false and m isleading tinancial statem ents.

24

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 24 of 33 



84. By reason of the foregoing, Defendantecareer Holdings violated, and unless

enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate Section l 3(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.

j 78m(a), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. jj 240.12b-20, 240.13a-1,

and 240.13a-13.

COUNT VIll

SECTION 20(a) - CONTROL PERSON LIABILITY - LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS
BY ECAREER HOLDINGS AND ECAREER. INC. OF THE EXCHANGE A CT

(SOLELY AGAINST DEFENDANT AZZATA)

85. The Commission repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

86. Beginning no later than August 2010, Defendant Azzata has been, directly or

indirectly, a control person of ecareer Holdings and ecareer, Inc. for purposes of Section 20(a)

of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. j 78t(a).

87. After the company's reverse merger in 2013, ecareer Holdings violated Sections

10(b) and 13(a) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 of the Exchange Act.

88. Begirming no later than August 2010, ecareer, lnc. violated Section 10(b) and

Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.

89. As a control person of ecareer Holdings and ecareer lnc., Defendant Azzata is

jointly and severally liable with and to the same extent as ecareer Holdings and ecareer Inc. for

each of their violations of the Exchange Act.

90. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendant Azzata, directly and indirectly violated,

and unless enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 20(a) of the Exchange

Act, 15 U.S.C. j 78t(a).

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 25 of 33 



CO UNT IX

VIOLATIONS OF PRIOR ORDERS

(Against Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks)

91. The Comm ission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this complaint

as if f'ully restated herein.

92. On February 7, 20l 1, the Commission ordered Defendant Esposito to not

associate with any broker or dealer.In the Matter ofDean A. Esposito, Exchange Act Release

No. 63863, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14241. Esposito remains subject to the

Comm ission's broker or dealer bar.

93. On February 7, 2011, the Comm ission ordered Defendant Devito to not associate

with any broker or dealer with the right to reapply after eighteen months. In the Matter of

Joseph Devito, Exchange Act Release No. 63864, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14242.

Devito has not successfully reapplied, so he remains

dealer bar.

subject to the Commission's broker or

94. On February 7, 2011, the Com mission ordered Defendant Birks to not associate

with any broker or dealer. In the Matter ofFrederick J Sfr/o', Exchange Act Release No. 63862,

Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14240. Birks remains subject to the Commission's broker

or dealer bar.

95. On August 18, 2010, final district court judgments were entered by consent

against Esposito and Birks, enjoining them from futttre violations of Section 5 of the Securities

Act and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and

penuanently barring them from participating in any penny stock offering. Devito was enjoined

by final judgment on the same date from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act and Section

26

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 26 of 33 



15(a) of the Exchange Act, and the court ordered a time-limited, l8-month penny stock bar

(through February 2012).

96. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks have violated,

and unless ordered to comply will continue to violate prior orders. Accordingly, the Court

should issue an order pursuant to Section 20(c) of the Securities Act and Section 21(e) of the

Exchange Act comm anding Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks to com ply with the prior

Orders.

COUNT X

FALSE CERTIFICATIONS IN VIOLATION OF EXCH ANGE ACT RULE 13a-14

(Solely Against Defendant Azzata)

97. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this complaint

as if fully restated herein.

After the company's reverse merger in 2013, Defendant Azzata in violation of

Rule 13a-14 of the Exchange Act, directly or indirectly, as an officer or director of an issuer,

falsely certified in nnnual and quarterly reports that based on his knowledge, the disclosure

reports did not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact

necessary in order to m ake the statements m ade, in light of the circlzm stances under which such

statements were m ade, not m isleading with respect to the period covered by the report.

99. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Azzata, directly or indirectly, violated, and

unless enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate Rule 13a-14 of the Exchange Act, 17

C.F.R. j 240.13a-14.

27

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 27 of 33 



COUNT Xl

AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF SECURITIES ACT SECTION 17(a)

(Solely Against Defendant Azzata)

100. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this complaint

as if fully restated herein.

Beginning no later than August 2010, Defendants ecareer Holdings or ecareer,

Inc., directly and indirectly, by use of the m eans or instrum ents of transportation or

communication in interstte commerce and by use of the mails, in the offer or sale of sectzrities,

knowingly, willfully or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud', obtained

money or property by means of untrue statements of material facts and omissions to state

m aterial facts necessary to m ake the statem ents m ade, in the light of the circum stances under

which they were made, not misleading', and engaged in transactions, practices and courses of

business which have operated as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers and prospective plzrchasers of

such securities.

102. Beginning no later than August 2010, Azzata knowingly, willfully, or recklessly

aided and abetted violations of Sections 17(a)(1), l7(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act by

Defendants ecareer Holdings or ecareer, Inc. Azzata also, directly and indirectly, had a general

awareness that he was part of an overall activity that was improper or illegal and knowingly, or

was extremely reckless in not knowing,and provided substantial assistance to violations of

Section 17(a) of the Secudties Act by Defendants ecareer Holdings and ecareer, Inc.

103. By reason of the foregoing acts, Azzata aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, is

reasonably likely to continue to aid and abet violations of Sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and

17(a)(3) of the Sectlrities Act by Defendants ecareer Holdings and ecareer, lnc.

28

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 28 of 33 



CO UNT XII

AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF 10(b), 13(a), AND 15(a) OF THE
EXCH ANGE ACT AND RULES THEREUNDER

(Solely Against Defendant Azzata)

104. The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this complaint

as if fully restated herein.

105. After the company's reverse merger in 2013, ecareer Holdings violated Sections

10(b) and 13(a) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 of the Exchange Act.

106. Begimling no later than August 2010, ecareer, lnc. violated Section 10(b) and

Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.

107. Beginning no later than August 2010, Defendants Esposito, Devito, and Birks,

acted as brokers or dealers and made use of the m ails and other m eans or instnzm ents of

interstate commerce to effect transactions in securities, or to induce or atlempt to induce the

purchase or sale of securities, without being associated with a broker or dealer that was

registered with the Commission in accordance with Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, 15

U.S.C. j 78o(b).

108. Beginning no later than August 20 l 0, Azzata knowingly, willfully, or recklessly

aided and abetted violations of the Exchange Act by Defendants ecareer Holdings, ecareer, lnc.,

Esposito, Devito, or Birks.

was part of an overall activity that was improper or illegal and knowingly, or was extrem ely

reckless in not knowing, and provided substantial assistance to violations of the Exchange Act by

Defendants ecareer Holdings, ecareer, lnc., Esposito, Devito, and Birks.

Azzata also, directly and indirectly, had a general awareness that he

29

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 29 of 33 



109. By reason of the foregoing acts, Azzata aided and abetted and, unless enjoined, is

reasonably likely to continue to aid and abet violations of the Exchange Act by Defendants

ecareer Holdings, ecareer, Inc., Esposito, Devito, and Birks.

RELIEF REOUESTED

W HEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court:

1.

Declaratory Relief

Declaze, detennine and find that the Defendants committed the violations of the federal

sectlrities laws alleged in this Complaint.

II.

Temporarv Restraininz Order. Preliminarv and Permanent lniunctive Relief

lssue a Temporary Restraining Order, a Preliminary lnjunction and Permanent Injunction

restraining and enjoining'. (a) Defendants ecareer Holdings, ecareer, lnc., Azzata, Esposito,

Devito and Birks from violating 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; (b) Defendant ecareer Holdings from

violating Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder; (c)

Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks from violating Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act; and

(d) Defendant Azzata from: (i) violating Exchange Act Rule 13a-14, (ii) aiding and abetting

ecareer's violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, (iii) aiding and abetting ecareer's

violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and

13a-13 thereunder, (iv) aiding and abetting Defendants Esposito, Devito and Birks violations of

Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and (v) violating Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for

30

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 30 of 33 



ecareer's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20,

13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder.

111.

Diseoreem ent

Issue an Order directing the Defendants and Relief Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten

protits or proceeds received from investors as a result of the acts and/or courses of conduct

complained of herein, with prejudgment interest thereon.

1V.

Civil M onev Penalties

lssue an Order directing the Defendants to pay civil m oney penalties plzrsuant to Section

20(d) of the Sectlrities Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77t(d), and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.

j 78(d).

V.

Pennv Stock Bars

Issue an Order pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Sectlrities Act, 15 U.S.C. j 77t(g), and

Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. j 78u(d)(6), pennanently barring Defendants

Azzata and Devito from participating in any offering of a penny stock.

VI.

O fficer and Director Bar & Bar from V otine ecareer's Stock

Issue an Order: (a) temporarily, preliminary and permanently barring Defendant Azzata

from voting the shares of ecareer Holdings or ecareer, lnc. he owns or controls, directly or

indirectly, and serving as an officer or director of any public company pursuant to Section 20(e)

31

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 31 of 33 



of the Securities Act, Sections 21(d)(2) and 21(d)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Section 305(b)(5)

of the Sarbanes-oxley Act.

Vll.

Accountinzs

lssue an Order requiring swom accountings by the Defendants and Relief Defendants.

VIll.

Orders

lssue alz order pursuant to Section 20(c) of the Securities act and Section 21(e) of the

Exchange Act comm anding Esposito, Devito and Birks to com ply with the prioç Orders.

IX.

Asset Freeze

lssue an Order freezing the assets of the Defendants and Relief Defendants until further

Order of the Court.

X.

Records Preservation and Expedited Discoverv

Issue an Order requiring the 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.

XI.

Further Relief

Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

32

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 32 of 33 



M I.

Retention of Jurisdiction

Further, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this

action in order to implement and carly out the tenus of a1l orders and decrees that may hereby be

entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the Comm ission for additional relief

within the jurisdidion of this Court.

Dated: April 7, 2015 Respectfully subm itted
,

,.

By: .

Christopher . M artin

Senior Trial Cotmsel

Arizona BarNo. 018486

Direct Dial: (305) 982-6386
E-mail: [email protected]

Linda Schmidt

Senior Counsel

Florida Bar No. 0156337

Direct Dial: (305) 982-6315
E-mail: [email protected]

Attomeys for Plaintiff

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM M ISSION
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800

M iam i, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 982-6300
Facsimile: (305) 536-4154

33

   Case 9:15-cv-80446-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 33 of 33