SEC v. DDBO Consulting, Inc.; DBBG Consulting, Inc.; Dean R. Baker; and Bret A. Grove, No. 0:14-cv-61685, Southern District of Florida (July 24, 2014) — Complaint
raw: Consulting, Inc., Dean R. Baker and Bret A. Grove (collectively, "Defendants") for violations of
Consulting, Inc., Dean R. Baker and Bret A. Grove (collectively, "Defendants") for violations of, No. 0:14-cv-61685 (S.D.F.la July 24, 2014)
summary
The SEC alleges that Dean R. Baker and Bret A. Grove, through their unregistered firms DDBO and DBBG Consulting, defrauded at least 100 investors—mostly seniors—by selling unregistered Thought Development, Inc. stock with false promises of an imminent IPO and NFL adoption, while concealing that over 50% of proceeds funded undisclosed commissions, resulting in charges under federal securities laws and demands for injunctions, disgorgement, penalties, and penny-stock bans.
paragraph
The SEC charged Dean R. Baker and Bret A. Grove, along with their companies DDBO Consulting and DBBG Consulting, with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b), 15(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by selling over $2.4 million in unregistered Thought Development, Inc. (TDI) stock to at least 100 investors between July 2011 and November 2012. The defendants falsely claimed TDI had secured a deal with the NFL for its laser-line technology and was on the verge of an IPO, while concealing that approximately half of investor funds were used to pay undisclosed commissions, including payments to intermediaries like Premiere Consulting and Advanced Equity Partners. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and a lifetime ban on Baker and Grove participating in penny-stock offerings.
narrative
The SEC alleges that Dean R. Baker and Bret A. Grove, through their unregistered firms DDBO Consulting and DBBG Consulting, orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to sell over $2.4 million in unregistered shares of Thought Development, Inc. (TDI) to at least 100 investors—predominantly senior citizens—between July 2011 and November 2012. The defendants falsely promised investors that TDI, a company claiming to develop laser-line technology for professional sports, was on the verge of an IPO and had secured a partnership with the NFL, including use of its technology in the Super Bowl. In reality, TDI had no such deals, and approximately 50% of investor proceeds were funneled as undisclosed commissions to DDBO, DBBG, and intermediaries like Premiere Consulting and Advanced Equity Partners, which had previously been enjoined in related cases. Baker and Grove operated without any broker-dealer registration, violating Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, while also engaging in material misrepresentations and omissions that breached Sections 17(a) and Rule 10b-5. The SEC further alleges that the defendants misled investors about the status of TDI’s business and the use of funds, exploiting their lack of financial sophistication. TDI itself had never registered with the SEC and was previously enjoined in October 2013. The Commission is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, civil monetary penalties, and a permanent bar prohibiting Baker and Grove from participating in any future penny-stock offerings.
Classified unregistered-securities(confidence 100%). EDGAR detection: forms Form D/S-1· recall 41% / precision 30%. detection rule →
Statutes
15U.S.C.§78j(b)15U.S.C.§78o(a)15U.S.C.§ 77q(a)15U.S.C.§77t(d)15U.S.C.§ 78u(d)15U.S.C.§77t(g)17C.F.R.§240.10b-5
Parties
Securities and Exchange CommissionDDBO Consulting, Inc.DBBG Consulting, Inc.Dean R. BakerBret A. Grove
Keywords
xxxx documentdocument enteredentered flsdflsd docketdocket pagesales agentscv-enteredsalesstocktdixxxxdocumentflsddocket
Extracted insights
Dollar amounts 5
- $419K $419,000 $100K–$1M
- $244K $244,000 $100K–$1M
- $75K $75,000 $10K–$100K
- $11K $11,000 $10K–$100K
- $3K $2,500 <$10K
Entities 2
- person dbbg consulting
- person ddbo consulting
Triples 25
- Securities and Exchange Commission brings action against DDBO Consulting, Inc., DBBG Consulting, Inc., Dean R. Baker and Bret A. Grove
- Defendants offered and sold unregistered Thought Development, Inc. stock to at least 100 investors
- Defendants failed to disclose they used at least 50% of investor proceeds for commissions or other fees
- Defendants violated Sections 5(a) and (c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- Defendants violated Sections 10(b), 15(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Commission requests the Court enter permanent injunctions restraining and enjoining the Defendants from violating federal securities laws
- Commission requests orders directing the Defendants to pay disgorgement with prejudgment interest
- Commission requests orders directing the Defendants to pay civil money penalties
- Commission requests orders barring Baker and Grove from participating in any offering of a penny stock
- Baker resides in Coral Springs, Florida
- Baker is and was president of both DDBO Consulting and DBBG Consulting
- Baker was not a registered broker-dealer nor affiliated with a registered broker-dealer
- Grove resides in Delray Beach, Florida
- Grove has been vice president of DBBG Consulting since January 2012
- Grove was not a registered broker-dealer nor affiliated with a registered broker-dealer
- DDBO Consulting is a Florida corporation formed in October 2010
- DDBO Consulting has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity
- DDBO Consulting has not registered any offering of securities under the Securities Act or a class of securities under the Exchange Act
- DBBG Consulting is a Florida corporation formed in January 2012
- DBBG Consulting has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity
- DBBG Consulting has not registered any offering of securities under the Securities Act or a class of securities under the Exchange Act
- TDI was incorporated in 2010
- TDI has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity
- TDI has not registered any offering of securities under the Securities Act or a class of securities under the Exchange Act
- This Court entered a consent judgment enjoining TDI from further violations of registration provisions of federal securities laws
PDF
Text layers
Extracted body text (20,797c)
STATESDISTRICTCOURT
SOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDA
CASENO.:
SECURITIESANDEXCHANGECOMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DDBOCONSULTING,INC.,
DBBGCONSULTING,INC.,
DEANR.BAKER,and
BRETA.GROVE,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
PlaintiffSecurities and Exchange Commission alleges as follows:
I.INTRODUCTION
1.TheCommissionbrings this action against DDBOConsulting,Inc., DBBG
Consulting,Inc.,DeanR.BakerandBretA.Grove(collectively,"Defendants")forviolationsof
the registration and antifraud provisionsofthefederalsecurities laws.
2.From no later than July 2011 until at least November 2012, the Defendants,
directly and through the servicesoftheir sales agents, offered and or sold unregistered Thought
Development,Inc. ("TDI") stock to at least 100 investors located throughout the United States,
mostofwhomwereseniorcitizens,and someofwhomwereunaccredited.
3.TDIdevelopeda laser-linesystemthat can be used inprofessionalandcollegiate
sportingevents.TheDefendantsor their sales
agentsluredvictimsintoinvestingin TDI by
makingfalsepromisesaboutinvestmentreturnson andtimingof apurportedlypendinginitial
publicoffering("IPO").Baker,DDBOConsultingandDBBGConsulting'ssalesagentsalso
investorsconcerningthestatusofnegotiationswith,andtheuseofTDI'sfirstdownlaser
technology by, the National FootballLeague.
4.TheDefendantsandtheirsalesagentsalsofailedtodisclosetoinvestorstheyused
at least 50% ofinvestorproceedsforcommissionsor otherfees.
5.As a result of theconductdescribedin thisComplaint,theDefendantsviolated
Sections5(a)and(c),and17(a)of theSecuritiesActof1933("SecuritiesAct"),15U.S.C.§§
77e(a),77e(c),77q(a)(l),77q(a)(2),77q(a)(3);andSections10(b),15(a)andRule10b-5ofthe
SecuritiesExchangeAct of1934("ExchangeAct"),15U.S.C.§78j(b),15U.S.C.§78o(a)and
17C.F.R.§240.10b-5.
6.Unlessrestrainedandenjoined,theDefendantsarereasonablylikely to continue
toviolatethefederalsecuritieslaws.
7.The Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter: (a) permanent
injunctionsrestrainingandenjoiningtheDefendantsfromviolatingthefederalsecuritieslaws;
(b)ordersdirectingtheDefendantsto paydisgorgementwithprejudgmentinterest;(c)orders
directingtheDefendantsto pay civil
moneypenalties;and (d) ordersbarringBaker andGrove
fromparticipatingin anyofferingofa pennystock.
II.DEFENDANTSANDRELATEDENTITY
A.Defendants
8.Bakerresides in Coral Springs, Florida. Baker is and at all relevant times was the
presidentof bothDDBOConsultingandDBBGConsulting.Duringtherelevanttimeperiod,
Baker was not aregisteredbroker-dealernor affiliated with aregisteredbroker-dealer.
9.Groveresides in Delray Beach,Florida.Since January 2012, Grove has been the
vicepresidentof DBBGConsulting.Duringtherelevanttimeperiod,Grove was not aregistered
noraffiliatedwithone.
10.DDBOConsultingis aFloridacorporationformedinOctober2010withits
principalplaceofbusinessinFortLauderdale,Florida.Ithasneverbeenregisteredwiththe
CommissioninanycapacityandhasnotregisteredanyofferingofsecuritiesundertheSecurities
Actora classofsecuritiesundertheExchangeAct.
11.DBBG Consultingis aFloridacorporationformedinJanuary2012.Itsprincipal
placeofbusinessislocatedatthesameaddressasDDBOConsultinginFortLauderdale,
Florida.It has never beenregisteredwith theCommissionin anycapacityand has notregistered
anyofferingofsecuritiesunder theSecuritiesAct or aclassofsecuritiesunder theExchange
Act.
B.RelatedEntitiesandIndividual
12.TDIwasincorporatedin2010with itsprincipalplace ofbusinessinMiami
Beach, Florida. It has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity and has not
registeredanyofferingofsecuritiesunder theSecuritiesAct or a class ofsecuritiesunder the
Exchange Act. On October 4, 2013, in an order on a related case, this Court entered a consent
judgment enjoining TDI from furtherviolationsofregistrationprovisions of federalsecurities
laws. SEC v.ThoughtDevelopmentet al..l:13-cv-23476-JEM.(S.D. Fla.).
13.AdvancedEquityPartners,LLC("AEP")andPremiereConsulting,LLC
("Premiere") are two Florida companies located at the same address in Hollywood, Florida. AEP
and Premiere were controlled by Peter D. Kirschner and his business partner, bothofwhom
raised approximately $2.4 million from investors in TDI stock while charging undisclosed
exorbitantfees. OnOctober3, 2013, an orderofpermanent injunction and otherreliefwas
entered against AEP andPremiereorderingthe entities to, among other things, pay
pre-judgmentinterestandacivilpenaltytobedeterminedbytheCourt.SECv.
AdvancedEquityPartnerset al..13-cv-62100-RSR(S.D.Fla.).
14.KirschnerresidesinDelrayBeach,Floridaandis aformermanagingmemberof
PremiereandacurrentmanagingmemberofAEP.Heandhisbusinesspartnerfounded
PremiereandAEP,and hired and paid salesagentsto,amongotherthings,solicitinvestorsto
purchaseunregisteredstockinTDI.OnOctober3,2013,in arelatedcase,thisCourtentereda
consentjudgmentwhich,amongothersthings,enjoinedKirschnerfromfurtherviolationsof the
registrationandantifraudprovisionsof
federalsecuritieslaws.SEC v.AdvancedEquity
Partners.LLC et al..13-cv-64321-RSR(S.D.Fla.).
III.JURISDICTIONANDVENUE
15.The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d) and
2(a) of theSecuritiesAct, 15U.S.C.§§77t(b),77t(d)and77v(a);and Sections 21(d), 21(e) and
27ofthe Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa.
16.The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue is proper in
the Southern District
ofFlorida because manyofthe Defendants' acts constituting violationsof
the Securities Act and the Exchange Act occurred in the District.More specifically, the
Defendantsofferedand sold securities and recruited sales agents whoofferedand sold securities
from offices inTamaracand Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Inaddition,proceedsfrom the fraudulent
sale
ofsecuritiesflowed into, andtransaction-basedpaymentsto sales agents came out of, bank
accounts located in Hollywood and Tamarac. Moreover, Baker and Grove reside in the Southern
DistrictofFlorida.
17.Inconnectionwith theconductalleged in thisComplaint,theDefendants,directly
and indirectly, singly or in concert with others, made useofthe means or instrumentalitiesof
commerce,themeansandinstrumentsoftransportationandcommunicationin
interstatecommerce,andthemails.
IV.FACTUALALLEGATIONS
A.TDIandRelationshipswithPremiereandAEP
18.TDIwasincorporatedin2010todevelopandmarketaportfolioofproductsand
inventions,includingalaser-linesystemdesignedtomarkfirstdownsinprofessionaland
collegiatefootballgames,includingtheNFL.TDIstatesthat itslasersystemgeneratesagreen
line on thefield,which isvisiblein thestadiumtoplayers,fans and ontelevision.TDI
representsthatuseof itstechnologywoulddecreasethetimeusedbyofficialstodeterminefirst
downsandgeneratemore time to be sold totelevisionadvertisers.
19.Sometime in 2010, TDI entered into an agreement with Kirschner and his
businesspartnertosolicitinvestorstoraisecapitalbysellingTDIstock.Kirschnerand his
businesspartnerformedPremiere,andlaterAEP,which,amongotherthings,offeredandsold
unregisteredTDI stock.
20.InapproximatelyJuly2011Premiereand AEPenteredintoagreementswith the
Defendants to act as sales agents to offer and sell TDI stock. Pursuant to these agreements, the
Defendants received transaction-based compensation in the form
ofcommissions and other fees.
TheDefendantsretainedapproximately50%ofinvestorproceeds ascommissionson their sale
ofTDIstock.
21.BakerandGrovewere aware thatPremiereand AEPwerealsotakinga portionof
investorproceedsascommissionsorotherfees.
22.Baker and Grove offered and sold TDI stock directly to investors and received
transaction-basedcompensationin theformofundisclosedcommissionsand other feesderived
investorproceeds.
23.Inaddition,BakerandGroverecruited,hiredandsupervisedsalesagentswho
werepaidtransaction-basedcompensationinconnectionwiththeofferandsaleofTDIstock
from bank accounts Baker and or Grove controlled and held by DDBO Consulting or DBBG
Consulting.
24.Some of these salesagentsservedasself-described"fronters"whoseprimary
responsibilitywastouseleadlistswhichconsistedofcontactinformationofpotentialinvestors.
Frontersmade initial contact withpotentialinvestorsandreferredthoseinterestedin TDI to
Baker, Grove or others to complete the stock purchase transaction.
25.Baker or Grove earned apercentageofcommissionor fee on every stock
purchase, even those sales made by the sales agents they hired.
26.From July2011untilNovember2012,DDBOConsultingreceivedapproximately
$419,000 from Premiere as compensation for the offer and saleofTDI stock.
27.From February 2012 until November 2012, DBBG Consulting received
approximately$244,000, and DDBOConsultingreceived approximately $11,000 from AEP as
compensationfor theofferandsaleofTDI stock.
B.TheDefendants'SolicitationofTDIStock
28.No registration statement was filed or in effect with theCommissionpursuant to
the Securities Act with respect to the TDI stock that the Defendants and their sales agents offered
and sold, and no exemption from registration existed with respect to these securities and
transactions.
29.NeithertheDefendantsnor their sales agentsprovidedinvestorsa TDI private
placement memorandum, financialinformation,or company risk disclosures during their
-otherthangeneralcompanyinformationavailableonTDI'swebsite.
30.TheDefendantsandtheirsalesagentsmaderepresentationsabouttheuseof
investorfundsraised for TDI'sbusinessthat weremateriallymisleadingbecausetheyfailedto
disclosecommissionsand other fees that
addedup toapproximately50% of thefundsraised
from investors in connection with the offer and saleofunregistered TDI stock.
31.The Defendants or their sales agents also made material misrepresentations to
investorsregardingtheexpectanttimingof orreturnon apurportedIPO of TDIstock.
Moreover,Baker and the sales agents madeadditionalmaterialmisrepresentationson behalf of
DDBO and DBBG regarding the status ofnegotiationswith the NFL and the purported useof
TDI's first down laser technology by certain teams and stadiums, or in the 2013 Super Bowl.
32.The Defendants or their sales agents also recklessly made specific representations
to investors inconnectionwith the offer and saleofTDI stock without taking any basic steps to
verify the truthfulness
ofthose representations.
33.The Defendants and their sales agents instructed investors to send, and investors
didsend,allpaymentsfor TDI stocktransactionsto bankaccountseitherPremiereor AEP held
or controlled.Premiereand AEP used these bank accounts to pay its sales agentstransaction-
based compensation, including DDBO Consulting and DBBG Consulting.
34.Neither the Defendants nor their sales agents were registered as broker-dealers or
associated with a registered broker-dealer whilefacilitatingand participating in these securities
sales.
C.MaterialMisrepresentationsandOmissions
35.In connection with the offeringofsecurities during the relevant period, the
Defendants made the following materialmisrepresentationsand omissions to investors.
UndisclosedExorbitantCommissionsorOtherFees andUseofProceeds
36.InsomeinstancestheDefendantsmaderepresentationstoinvestorsaboutthe use
ofinvestorfundsforTDI'sbusinessthatweremateriallymisleadingbecausetheyfailedto
disclosesalecommissionsandotherfeesthataddedup toapproximately50%ofthefundsraised
frominvestorsinconnectionwith the offer andsaleofunregisteredTDI stock. TheDefendants
knewtheirsalesagentsalsomateriallymisledinvestorsbyfailingtodisclosetheexorbitant
commissionsandotherfeespaidfromtheofferingproceeds.Onotheroccasions,salesagentson
behalf
ofDDBOandDBBGmisrepresentedthecommissionsorotherfeestheyretainedor
receivedinconnectionwiththeofferandsaleofTDIstock.
37.Forexample,aDBBGsalesagentliedto a 79year-oldretireelivingon afixed
incomeregardingcommissionsorotherfeesconnectedwith thepurchaseofpurportedTDI
stock.DBBGsalesagentstold him theywouldonlytakea commissionif, in thefuture,he
resoldthe stock at aprofit.Inreality,DBBGwasimmediatelypaidits$15,000commissionon
the$27,000investedincommissionsor other fees.
38.The Defendants or their salesagentsalsomisrepresentedtheactualuseofinvestor
proceeds.
39.Forexample, theDefendantsor theirsalesagentsrepresentedtoinvestorsthe
offeringproceedswould be used for the developmentofTDI's technology and to fund a
purported IPOofTDI stock, when, infact,they were not.
2.FalsePromisesaboutPendingIPOandInvestmentReturns
40.The Defendants and their sales agents falsely promised investors that TDI was
aboutto gopublic.TheDefendantsfailedto take anybasicsteps to verify the timingofTDI'
purported IPO.
Inaddition,Baker,DDBO,DBBGandtheirsalesagentsfalselypromised
investorsguaranteedreturns,andthatthevalueofTDIstockwouldincreasesignificantlyfrom
$2.50pershareasaresultofthepurportedIPO.Infact,TDIhadnoimmediateplanstogo
public and there was no basisforthesestatements.
42.Forexample,inJanuary2012,BakertoldaninvestorthatTDI'sIPOwas
"imminent"and,at thelatest,wouldoccurin"late-springorsummer2012."Bakerpromisedthe
anticipatedopeningpriceofTDI stockwouldbe$8.50pershare.
3.UseoftheTechnology
43.Bakerandsalesagents,on behalfofDDBOandDBBG,promisedinvestorsthat
TDI'slaser-linetechnologywouldbeusedby theNFLeitherduringthepreseasonorregular
seasongames.Insomeinstances,BakerandGrove'ssalesagentstoldinvestorstheNFLhad
agreedto use TDI's technologyduringthe2013Super Bowl.
44.Forexample,inJanuary2012,Bakertold aninvestorthat TDI'stechnology
wouldbeusedduringthe NFL's2012preseason.Atthattime,TDIhadnoagreementwith the
NFL.
45.In addition, one individual invested anadditional$75,000, after previously
investing$2,500,basedonpromisesofapendingTDIIPO,becauseasalesagentofDBBG told
him that NFLCommissionerRogerGoodellpurportedly"purchased"thetechnologyforthe
league for use in the Super Bowl.
46.Theserepresentationswerefalse.Baker,DDBOandDBBG'ssalesagentshadno
basis for thesestatements.TDI did not have anyagreementswith the NFL or any team tofeature
itstechnologyduringfootballgames,letaloneat theSuperBowl.Moreover,BakerandDDBO
andDBBG'ssalesagentsfailedto take anystepsto verify thestatusofnegotiationswith or use
thetechnologyby the NFL.
COUNTI
ViolationofSections5(a)and5(c)oftheSecuritiesActof1933
47.TheCommissionreallegesandincorporatesparagraphs1through34 ofthis
Complaint.
48.Noregistrationstatementwasfiledor ineffectwiththeCommissionpursuantto
theSecuritiesActwithrespecttothesecuritiesandtransactionsdescribedinthisComplaintand
noexemptionfromregistrationexistedwithrespecttothesesecuritiesandtransactions.
49.Asdescribedabove,theDefendantsdirectlyorindirectly:(a) made use of the
meansorinstrumentsoftransportationorcommunicationininterstatecommerceor ofthemails
tosell,throughtheuseormediumofanyprospectusorotherwise,securitiesas towhichno
registrationstatementwasineffect;(b)forthepurposeofsaleordeliveryaftersale,carriedor
causedto becarriedthroughthemailsor ininterstatecommerce,bymeansorinstrumentsof
transportation,securitiesas towhichnoregistrationstatementwasineffect;or(c)madeuseof
meansorinstrumentsoftransportationorcommunicationininterstatecommerceor of themails
tooffertosell,throughthe use ormediumof aprospectusorotherwise,securitiesas towhichno
registrationstatementhas been filed.
50.Byreasonsof theforegoing,theDefendantsviolated,and,unlessrestrainedand
enjoined,arereasonablylikelytocontinuetoviolate,Sections5(a)and5(c)of theSecuritiesAct,
15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c).
COUNTII
FraudinViolationofSection17(a)(1)oftheSecuritiesAct
51.TheCommissionreallegesandincorporatesparagraphs1 through46 of this
10
52.FromnolaterthanJuly2011untilatleastNovember2012,theDefendants
directlyandindirectly,byuseofthemeansorinstrumentsoftransportationorcommunicationin
interstatecommerceandbyuseofthemails,intheofferorsaleofsecurities,asdescribedinthis
complaint,knowingly,willfullyorrecklesslyemployeddevices,schemesorartificestodefraud.
53.Byreasonoftheforegoing,theDefendantsdirectlyandindirectlyviolated,and,
unlessenjoined,arereasonablylikelytocontinuetoviolate,Section17(a)(1)oftheSecurities
Act, 15U.S.C.§ 77q(a)(l).
COUNTIII
FraudinViolationofSections17(a)(2)and17(a)(3)oftheSecuritiesAct
54.TheCommissionreallegesandincorporatesparagraphs1 through46 of this
Complaint.
55.Fromno later thanJuly2011untilatleastNovember2012,theDefendants
directlyandindirectly,by use of themeansorinstrumentsof transportationorcommunicationin
interstatecommerceand by the use of themails,in the offer or saleofsecurities:(a)obtained
money or property by meansofuntruestatementsof material facts and omissions to state
material facts necessary to make thestatementsmade, in the light of the circumstances under
which they weremade,notmisleading;or (b)engagedintransactions,practicesandcoursesof
businesswhich operated and willoperateas a fraud or deceit uponpurchasersandprospective
purchasersofsuch securities.
56.By reasonoftheforegoing,theDefendantsdirectly and indirectlyviolated,and,
unlessenjoined,arereasonablylikely tocontinueto violate,Sections17(a)(2)and17(a)(3)of the
SecuritiesAct,15U.S.C.§§77q(a)(2)and77q(a)(3).
11
IV
FraudInViolationofSection10(b)andRule10b-5oftheExchangeAct
57.TheCommissionreallegesandincorporatesparagraphs1through46 ofthis
Complaint.
58.Fromno later thanJuly2011untilatleastNovember2012,theDefendants
directlyandindirectly,byuseofthemeansandinstrumentalitiesofinterstatecommerce,andof
themailsinconnectionwiththepurchaseorsaleofthesecurities,asdescribedinthiscomplaint,
knowingly,willfullyorrecklessly;(1)employeddevices,schemesorartificestodefraud;(2)
made untruestatementsofmaterial facts andomittedto statematerialfactsnecessaryin order to
makethestatementsmade,in thelightof thecircumstancesunderwhichtheyweremade,not
misleading;or(3)engagedinacts,practicesandcoursesofbusinesswhichoperatedas afraud
uponthepurchasersofsuchsecuritiesandwilloperateas afrauduponthepurchasersofsuch
securities.
59.Byreasonsoftheforegoing,theDefendantsdirectlyorindirectlyviolated,and,
unlessenjoined,arereasonablylikelytocontinuetoviolate,Section10(b)andRule10b-5ofthe
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and 17C.F.R.§ 240.10b-5.
COUNTV
ViolationofSection15(a)oftheExchangeAct
60.TheCommissionreallegesandincorporatesparagraphs1 through 39 of this
Complaint.
61.From no later than July2011untilat leastNovember2012, theDefendants,while
actingas orassociatedwithabrokerordealer,effectedtransactionsin, orinducedorattempted
toinducethepurchaseor sale of,securitieswhiletheywerenotregisteredwith theCommission
12
abrokerordealerorwhentheywerenotassociatedwithanentityregisteredwiththe
commissionasabroker-dealer.
62.Byreasonsoftheforegoing,theDefendantsdirectlyorindirectlyviolated,and,
unlessenjoined,arereasonablylikelytocontinuetoviolate,Section15(a)oftheExchangeAct,
15U.S.C.§78o(a).
RELIEFREQUESTED
WHEREFORE,the Commission respectfully requests the Court:
I.
DeclaratoryRelief
Declare,determineandfindthat theDefendantshavecommittedtheviolationsof the
federal securities laws alleged in this Complaint.
II.
PermanentInjunctiveRelief
IssueaPermanentInjunctionrestrainingandenjoiningtheDefendants,theirofficers,
agents,servants,employees,attorneys,representativesandallpersonsinactiveconcertor
participationwiththem,andeachofthem,fromviolatingSections5(a),5(c),17(a)(1),(2)and
(3) of theSecuritiesAct,andSections10(b)and15(a)andRule10b-5of theExchangeAct.
III.
Disgorgement
IssueanOrderdirectingtheDefendantstodisgorgeallill-gottengains,including
prejudgmentinterest,resultingfromtheactsorcoursesofconductallegedinthisComplaint.
13
Penalties
IssueanOrderdirectingeachof theDefendantstopayacivilmoneypenaltypursuantto
Section20(d)oftheSecuritiesAct,15U.S.C.§77t(d),andSection21(d)oftheExchangeAct,
15U.S.C.§ 78u(d).
V.
PennyStockBar
IssueanOrderbarringBakerandGrovefromparticipatingin anyofferingof apenny
stock,pursuanttoSection20(g)oftheSecuritiesAct,15U.S.C.§77t(g),andSection21(d)of
theExchangeAct,15U.S.C.§78u(d),for theviolationsallegedin thisComplaint.
VI.
FurtherRelief
Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
VII.
RetentionofJurisdiction
Further,theCommissionrespectfullyrequeststhe Court retain jurisdiction over this
actionin order toimplementand carry out the terms of allordersanddecreesthat may beentered
or toentertainanysuitableapplicationor
motionby theCommissionforadditionalreliefwithin
thejurisdictionofthis Court.
Respectfullysubmitted,
July23,2014Bv:^J^rJ^J^^J^o^^^^aJ
ROBERTK.LEVENSON
Regional Trial Counsel
14
BarNo.0089771
[email protected]
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6341
Facsimile: (305)536-4154
KEVINB.HART
SeniorCounsel
S.D.Fla.BarNo.A5501875
[email protected]
Direct Dial: (305)982-6321
Facsimile:(305)536-4152
AttorneysforPlaintiff
SECURITIESANDEXCHANGECOMMISSION
801BrickellAvenue,Suite1800
Miami,Florida33131
15OCR text (24,301c · tika · 95% conf)
STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DDBO CONSULTING, INC.,
DBBG CONSULTING, INC.,
DEAN R. BAKER, and
BRET A. GROVE,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission alleges as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Commission brings this action against DDBO Consulting, Inc., DBBG
Consulting, Inc., Dean R. Baker and Bret A. Grove (collectively, "Defendants") for violations of
the registrationand antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
2. From no later than July 2011 until at least November 2012, the Defendants,
directly and through the services of their sales agents, offered and or sold unregistered Thought
Development, Inc. ("TDI") stock to at least 100 investors located throughout the United States,
most of whom were senior citizens, and some of whom were unaccredited.
3. TDI developed a laser-line system that can be used in professional and collegiate
sporting events. The Defendants or their sales agents lured victims into investing in TDI by
making false promises about investment returns on and timing of a purportedly pending initial
public offering ("IPO"). Baker, DDBO Consulting and DBBG Consulting's sales agents also
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 1 of 15
investors concerning the status ofnegotiations with, and the use ofTDI's first down laser
technologyby, the National Football League.
4. The Defendants and their sales agents also failed to disclose to investors they used
at least50%of investor proceeds for commissions or otherfees.
5. As a result of the conduct described in this Complaint, the Defendants violated
Sections 5(a) and (c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§
77e(a), 77e(c), 77q(a)(l), 77q(a)(2), 77q(a)(3); and Sections 10(b), 15(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a) and
17C.F.R. §240.10b-5.
6. Unless restrained and enjoined, the Defendants are reasonably likely to continue
to violate the federal securities laws.
7. The Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter: (a) permanent
injunctions restraining and enjoining the Defendants from violating the federal securities laws;
(b) orders directing the Defendants to pay disgorgement with prejudgment interest; (c) orders
directing the Defendants to pay civil money penalties; and (d) orders barring Baker and Grove
from participating in any offering of a penny stock.
II. DEFENDANTS AND RELATED ENTITY
A. Defendants
8. Baker resides in Coral Springs, Florida. Baker is and at all relevant times was the
president of both DDBO Consulting and DBBG Consulting. During the relevant time period,
Baker was not a registered broker-dealer nor affiliated with a registered broker-dealer.
9. Grove resides in Delray Beach, Florida. Since January 2012, Grove has been the
vicepresident of DBBGConsulting. During the relevant time period, Grovewas not a registered
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 2 of 15
nor affiliated with one.
10. DDBO Consulting is a Florida corporation formed in October 2010 with its
principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It has never been registered with the
Commission inany capacity and has not registered any offering of securities under the Securities
Act or a class of securities under the Exchange Act.
11. DBBG Consulting is a Florida corporation formed in January 2012. Its principal
place of business is located at the same address as DDBO Consulting in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. It has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity and has not registered
any offering of securities under the Securities Act or a class of securities under the Exchange
Act.
B. Related Entities and Individual
12. TDI was incorporated in 2010 with its principal place of business in Miami
Beach, Florida. It has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity and has not
registered any offering of securities under the Securities Act or a class of securities under the
Exchange Act. On October 4, 2013, in an order on a related case, this Court entered a consent
judgment enjoining TDI from further violations of registration provisions of federal securities
laws. SEC v. Thought Development et al.. l:13-cv-23476-JEM. (S.D. Fla.).
13. Advanced Equity Partners, LLC ("AEP") and Premiere Consulting, LLC
("Premiere") are two Florida companies located at the same address in Hollywood, Florida. AEP
and Premiere were controlled by Peter D. Kirschner and his business partner, both of whom
raised approximately $2.4 million from investors in TDI stock while charging undisclosed
exorbitant fees. On October 3, 2013, an order of permanent injunction and other relief was
entered against AEP and Premiere ordering the entities to, among other things, pay
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 3 of 15
pre-judgment interest and a civil penalty to be determined by the Court. SEC v.
Advanced Equity Partners et al.. 13-cv-62100-RSR(S.D. Fla.).
14. Kirschner resides in Delray Beach, Florida and is a former managing member of
Premiere and a current managing member of AEP. He and his business partner founded
Premiere and AEP, and hired and paid sales agents to, among other things, solicit investors to
purchase unregistered stock in TDI. On October 3, 2013, in a related case, this Court entered a
consent judgment which, among others things, enjoined Kirschner from further violations of the
registration and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. SEC v. Advanced Equity
Partners. LLC et al.. 13-cv-64321-RSR(S.D. Fla.).
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d) and
2(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d) and 77v(a); and Sections 21(d), 21(e) and
27 ofthe Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa.
16. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and venue is proper in
the Southern District of Florida because many of the Defendants' acts constituting violations of
the Securities Act and the Exchange Act occurred in the District. More specifically, the
Defendants offered and sold securities and recruited sales agents who offered and sold securities
from offices in Tamarac and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In addition, proceeds from the fraudulent
sale of securities flowed into, and transaction-based payments to sales agents came out of, bank
accounts located in Hollywood and Tamarac. Moreover, Baker and Grove reside in the Southern
District ofFlorida.
17. In connection with the conduct alleged in this Complaint, the Defendants, directly
and indirectly, singly or in concert with others, made use of the means or instrumentalities of
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 4 of 15
commerce, the means and instruments of transportation and communication in
interstate commerce, and the mails.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. TDI and Relationships with Premiere and AEP
18. TDI was incorporated in 2010 to develop and market a portfolio of products and
inventions, including a laser-line system designed to mark first downs in professional and
collegiate football games, including the NFL. TDI states that its laser system generates a green
line on the field, which is visible in the stadium to players, fans and on television. TDI
represents thatuse of its technology would decrease the time used byofficials to determine first
downs and generate more time to be soldto television advertisers.
19. Sometime in 2010, TDI entered into an agreement with Kirschner and his
business partner to solicit investors to raise capital by selling TDI stock. Kirschner and his
business partner formed Premiere, and later AEP, which, among other things, offered and sold
unregistered TDI stock.
20. In approximately July 2011 Premiere and AEP entered into agreements with the
Defendants to act as sales agents to offer and sell TDI stock. Pursuant to these agreements, the
Defendants received transaction-based compensation in the form of commissions and other fees.
The Defendants retained approximately 50% of investor proceeds as commissions on their sale
of TDI stock.
21. Baker and Grove were aware that Premiere and AEP were also taking a portion of
investor proceeds as commissions or other fees.
22. Baker and Grove offered and sold TDI stock directly to investors and received
transaction-based compensation in the form of undisclosed commissions and other fees derived
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 5 of 15
investor proceeds.
23. In addition, Baker and Grove recruited, hired and supervised sales agents who
were paid transaction-based compensation in connection with the offer and sale of TDI stock
from bank accounts Baker and or Grove controlled and held by DDBO Consulting or DBBG
Consulting.
24. Some of these sales agents served as self-described "fronters" whose primary
responsibility was to use lead lists which consisted of contact information of potential investors.
Fronters made initial contact with potential investors and referred those interested in TDI to
Baker, Grove or others to complete the stock purchase transaction.
25. Baker or Grove earned a percentage of commission or fee on every stock
purchase, even those sales made by the sales agents they hired.
26. From July 2011 until November 2012, DDBO Consulting received approximately
$419,000 from Premiere as compensation for the offer and sale ofTDI stock.
27. From February 2012 until November 2012, DBBG Consulting received
approximately $244,000, and DDBO Consulting received approximately $11,000 from AEP as
compensation for the offer and sale of TDI stock.
B. The Defendants' Solicitation ofTDI Stock
28. No registration statement was filed or in effect with the Commission pursuant to
the Securities Act with respect to the TDI stock that the Defendants and their sales agents offered
and sold, and no exemption from registration existed with respect to these securities and
transactions.
29. Neither the Defendants nor their sales agents provided investors a TDI private
placement memorandum, financial information, or company risk disclosures during their
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 6 of 15
- other than general company information available onTDI's website.
30. The Defendants and their sales agents made representations about the use of
investor funds raised for TDI's business that were materially misleading because they failed to
disclose commissions and other fees that added up to approximately 50% of the funds raised
from investors in connection with the offer and sale of unregistered TDI stock.
31. The Defendants or their sales agents also made material misrepresentations to
investors regarding the expectant timing of or return on a purported IPO of TDI stock.
Moreover, Baker and the sales agents made additional material misrepresentations on behalf of
DDBO and DBBG regarding the status of negotiations with the NFL and the purported use of
TDI's first down laser technology by certain teams and stadiums,or in the 2013 Super Bowl.
32. The Defendants or their sales agents also recklessly made specific representations
to investors in connection with the offer and sale of TDI stock without taking any basic steps to
verify the truthfulness of those representations.
33. The Defendants and their sales agents instructed investors to send, and investors
did send, all payments for TDI stock transactions to bank accounts either Premiere or AEP held
or controlled. Premiere and AEP used these bank accounts to pay its sales agents transaction-
based compensation, including DDBO Consulting and DBBG Consulting.
34. Neither the Defendants nor their sales agents were registered as broker-dealers or
associated with a registered broker-dealer while facilitating and participating in these securities
sales.
C. Material Misrepresentations and Omissions
35. In connection with the offering of securities during the relevant period, the
Defendantsmade the following material misrepresentations and omissions to investors.
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 7 of 15
Undisclosed Exorbitant Commissions or Other Feesand Use ofProceeds
36. In some instances the Defendants made representations to investors about the use
of investor funds for TDI's business that were materially misleading because they failed to
disclose sale commissions and other fees that added upto approximately 50% ofthe funds raised
from investors in connection with the offer and sale of unregistered TDI stock. The Defendants
knew their sales agents also materially misled investors by failing to disclose the exorbitant
commissions and other fees paid from the offering proceeds. On other occasions, sales agents on
behalf of DDBO and DBBG misrepresented the commissions or other fees they retained or
received in connection with the offer and sale ofTDI stock.
37. For example, a DBBG sales agent lied to a 79 year-old retiree living on a fixed
income regarding commissions or other fees connected with the purchase of purported TDI
stock. DBBG sales agents told him they would only take a commission if, in the future, he
resold the stock at a profit. In reality, DBBG was immediately paid its $15,000 commission on
the $27,000 invested in commissions or other fees.
38. The Defendantsor their salesagents alsomisrepresented the actual use of investor
proceeds.
39. For example, the Defendants or their sales agents represented to investors the
offering proceeds would be used for the development of TDI's technology and to fund a
purported IPO ofTDI stock, when, in fact, they were not.
2. False Promises about Pending IPO and Investment Returns
40. The Defendants and their sales agents falsely promised investors that TDI was
about to go public. The Defendants failed to take any basic steps to verify the timing of TDI'
purported IPO.
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 8 of 15
In addition, Baker, DDBO, DBBG and their sales agents falsely promised
investors guaranteed returns, and that the value of TDI stock would increase significantly from
$2.50 per share as a result of the purported IPO. In fact, TDI had no immediate plans to go
publicandtherewas no basis for these statements.
42. For example, in January 2012, Baker told an investor that TDI's IPO was
"imminent" and, at the latest, would occur in "late-spring or summer 2012." Baker promised the
anticipated opening price ofTDI stockwould be $8.50 per share.
3. Use ofthe Technology
43. Baker and sales agents, on behalfof DDBO and DBBG, promised investors that
TDI's laser-line technology would be used by the NFL either during the preseason or regular
season games. In some instances, Baker and Grove's sales agents told investors the NFL had
agreed to use TDI's technology during the 2013 SuperBowl.
44. For example, in January 2012, Baker told an investor that TDI's technology
would be used during the NFL's 2012 preseason. At that time, TDI had no agreement with the
NFL.
45. In addition, one individual invested an additional $75,000, after previously
investing $2,500, based on promises of a pending TDI IPO, because a sales agent of DBBG told
him that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell purportedly "purchased" the technology for the
league for use in the Super Bowl.
46. These representations were false. Baker, DDBO and DBBG's sales agents had no
basis for these statements. TDI did not have any agreements with the NFL or any team to feature
its technology during football games, let alone atthe Super Bowl. Moreover, Baker and DDBO
and DBBG's sales agents failed to take any steps to verify the status of negotiations with or use
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 9 of 15
the technology by the NFL.
COUNT I
Violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933
47. The Commission realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 34 of this
Complaint.
48. No registration statement was filed or in effect with the Commission pursuant to
the Securities Act with respect to the securities and transactions described in this Complaint and
no exemption from registration existed with respect to these securities and transactions.
49. As described above, the Defendants directly or indirectly: (a) made use of the
means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails
to sell, through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise, securities as to which no
registration statement was in effect; (b) for the purpose of sale or delivery after sale, carried or
caused to be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce, by means or instruments of
transportation, securities as to which no registration statement was in effect; or (c) made use of
means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails
to offer to sell, through the useor medium of a prospectus or otherwise, securities as to which no
registration statement has been filed.
50. By reasons of the foregoing, the Defendants violated, and, unless restrained and
enjoined, arereasonably likely to continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of theSecurities Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and 77e(c).
COUNT II
Fraud in Violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act
51. The Commission realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 46 of this
10
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 10 of 15
52. From no later than July 2011 until at least November 2012, the Defendants
directly and indirectly, by use ofthe means or instruments oftransportation orcommunication in
interstate commerce and byuse of the mails, inthe offer or sale of securities, asdescribed in this
complaint, knowingly, willfully orrecklessly employed devices, schemes orartifices to defraud.
53. 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. § 77q(a)(l).
COUNT III
Fraud in Violation of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act
54. The Commission realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 46 of this
Complaint.
55. From no later than July 2011 until at least November 2012, 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: (a) obtained
money or property by means of untrue statements of material facts and omissions to state
material facts necessary to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under
which they were made, not misleading; or (b) engaged in transactions, practices and courses of
business which operated and will operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers and prospective
purchasers of such securities.
56. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly and indirectly violated, and,
unless enjoined, are reasonably likelyto continue to violate, Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the
Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(2) and 77q(a)(3).
11
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 11 of 15
IV
Fraud In Violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act
57. The Commission realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 46 of this
Complaint.
58. From no later than July 2011 until at least November 2012, the Defendants
directly and indirectly, by use ofthe means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and of
the mails in connection with the purchase or sale of the securities, as described in this complaint,
knowingly, willfully or recklessly; (1) employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; (2)
made untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to
make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading; or (3) engaged in acts, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud
upon the purchasers of such securities and will operate as a fraud upon the purchasers of such
securities.
59. By reasons of the foregoing, the Defendants directly or indirectly violated, and,
unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
ExchangeAct, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
COUNT V
Violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act
60. The Commission realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 39 of this
Complaint.
61. Fromno later than July 2011 until at leastNovember 2012, the Defendants, while
acting as or associated with a broker or dealer, effected transactions in, or induced or attempted
to induce the purchase or saleof, securities while they were not registered withthe Commission
12
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 12 of 15
a broker or dealer or when they were not associated with an entity registered with the
commission as a broker-dealer.
62. By reasons of the foregoing, the Defendants directly or indirectly violated, and,
unless enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. §78o(a).
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfullyrequests the Court:
I.
Declaratory Relief
Declare, determine and find that the Defendants have committed the violations of the
federal securities laws alleged in this Complaint.
II.
Permanent Injunctive Relief
Issue a Permanent Injunction restraining and enjoining the Defendants, their officers,
agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives and all persons in active concert or
participation with them, and each of them, from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), (2) and
(3)of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) andRule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.
III.
Disgorgement
Issue an Order directing the Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains, including
prejudgment interest, resulting from the acts orcourses ofconduct alleged in this Complaint.
13
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 13 of 15
Penalties
Issue an Order directing each of the Defendants to pay a civil money penalty pursuant to
Section 20(d) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act,
15 U.S.C. § 78u(d).
V.
Penny Stock Bar
Issue an Order barring Baker and Grove from participating in any offering of a penny
stock, pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(g), and Section 21(d) of
the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d), for the violations alleged in this Complaint.
VI.
Further Relief
Grant such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
VII.
Retention of Jurisdiction
Further, the Commission respectfully requests the Court retain jurisdiction over this
action in orderto implement and carryout the termsof all orders and decrees that may be entered
or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the Commission for additional relief within
the jurisdiction of this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
July 23, 2014 Bv:^J^rJ^J^^J^o^^^^aJ
ROBERT K. LEVENSON
Regional Trial Counsel
14
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 14 of 15
Bar No. 0089771
[email protected]
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6341
Facsimile: (305) 536-4154
KEVIN B. HART
Senior Counsel
S.D.Fla.BarNo.A5501875
[email protected]
Direct Dial: (305) 982-6321
Facsimile: (305)536-4152
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800
Miami, Florida 33131
15
Case 0:14-cv-61685-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2014 Page 15 of 15