In re STORY & COMPANY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

                                                                     Before                                                                     the                                                                     

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

September 13, 2007 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 
File No. 3-12796 
In the Matter of 
STORY & COMPANY, P.C.,  
and BRIAN L. STORY, CPA, 
Respondents. 
ORDER INSTITUTING  
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4C OF THE 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
AND RULE 102(e) OF THE 
COMMISSION’S RULES OF 
PRACTICE, AND NOTICE OF 
HEARING 
I. 
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that public 
administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 4C of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 
against Story & Company, P.C. (“Story & Company”) and Brian L. Story, CPA (“Story”) 
(collectively “Respondents”). 
II. 
After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that: 
A. RESPONDENTS 
1. Story & Company, P.C. is a Colorado professional corporation and public 
accounting firm headquartered in Centennial, Colorado.  Story & Company prepared and issued an 
audit report dated February 11, 2004, in connection with its audit of Regatta Capital Partners, Inc. 
(“Regatta Capital”). 
2. Brian L. Story, CPA, 67, of Littleton, Colorado, is a certified public accountant 
licensed in Colorado and Nebraska since 1974.  As engagement partner on the Regatta Capital 
engagement, Story participated in the preparation and issuance of the February 11, 2004 Regatta 
Capital audit report.   

B.	OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES 
1. Regatta Capital is a Colorado corporation based in Denver, Colorado.  During the 
relevant period, Regatta Capital’s common stock traded on the OTC Bulletin Board.  Its common 
stock is registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. Regatta 
Capital reported $2,128 in revenue and total assets of $9,115 for its fiscal year ended 2003.  
Regatta Capital has at all relevant times been an issuer as defined by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 
2002 (the “Act”).  During the relevant period, Regatta was known as Monet Entertainment, Ltd. 
C. 	FAILURE TO REGISTER WITH THE PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING 
OVERSIGHT BOARD 
1. Section 102(a) of the Act prohibits any person that is not a registered public 
accounting firm with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) from 
preparing or issuing, or participating in the preparation or issuance of, any audit report with respect 
to any public reporting company after October 22, 2003. 
2. At no point did any of the Respondents register with the PCAOB as a public 
accounting firm. 
3. Story & Company audited Regatta Capital’s financial statements included in 
Regatta Capital’s annual report for fiscal year 2003 on Form 10-KSB, filed with the Commission 
on March 29, 2004.   
4. Story & Company prepared and issued an audit report dated February 11, 2004, 
which was included in Regatta Capital’s Form 10-KSB.   
5. Story participated in auditing the financial statements included in Regatta Capital’s 
annual report for fiscal year 2003 on Form 10-KSB, filed with the Commission on March 29, 
2004. 
6. Story participated in the preparation and issuance of an audit report dated February 
11, 2004, which was included in Regatta Capital’s Form 10-KSB. 
7. Story & Company received $1,100 for conducting an audit of Regatta Capital’s 
financial statements for its fiscal year 2003 and for issuing an audit report on those financial 
statements.  
D.	        VIOLATIONS        
1. Section 4C(a) of the Exchange Act provides, in relevant part, that the Commission 
“may censure any person, or deny, temporarily or permanently, to any person the privilege of 
appearing or practicing before the Commission in any way, if that person is found by the 
Commission ... (1) not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others ... or (3) to have 
willfully violated, or willfully aided and abetted the violation of, any provision of the securities 
laws or the rules and regulations issued thereunder.” 
2


2. Rule 102(e)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice provides that the 
Commission “may censure a person or deny, temporarily or permanently, the privilege of 
appearing or practicing before it in any way to any person who is found by the Commission ... (i) 
not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others ... or (iii) to have willfully violated ... 
any provision of the Federal securities laws or the rules and regulations thereunder.” 
3. Section 102(a) of the Act provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person that is 
not a registered public accounting firm to prepare or issue, or to participate in the preparation or 
issuance of, any audit report with respect to any issuer.” 
4. Because Story & Company had not registered with the PCAOB, it lacked “the 
requisite qualifications” to issue an audit report dated February 11, 2004. 
5. By participating in the preparation or issuance of an audit report after October 22, 
2003 by an audit firm that was not registered with the PCAOB, Story lacked “the requisite 
qualifications to represent others.” 
6. In violation of Section 102(a) of the Act, Story & Company prepared and issued an 
audit report on the financial statements of a reporting company after October 22, 2003, without 
first registering with the PCAOB.  Story & Company thus also willfully violated the federal 
securities laws. 
III. 
In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commission deems it 
necessary and appropriate that public administrative proceedings be instituted to determine:    
A. Whether the allegations set forth in Section II are true and, in connection therewith, 
to afford Respondents an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations; and 
B. Whether, pursuant to Sections 4C(a)(1) and 4C(a)(3) of the Exchange Act and Rules 
102(e)(1)(i) and 102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Story & Company should be 
censured by the Commission or temporarily or permanently denied the privilege of appearing or 
practicing before the Commission. 
C. Whether, pursuant to Section 4C(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 102(e)(1)(i) of 
the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Story should be censured by the Commission or temporarily or 
permanently denied the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission. 
IV. 
IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on the questions 
set forth in Section III hereof shall be convened at a time and place to be fixed, and before an 
Administrative Law Judge to be designated by further order as provided by Rule 110 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.110.   
3


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file an Answer to the allegations 
contained in this Order within ten (10) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule 220 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220.  
If Respondents fail to file the directed answer, or fail to appear at a hearing after being duly 
notified, the Respondents may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be determined against 
them upon consideration of this Order, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true as 
provided by Rules 155(a), 220(f), 221(f) and 310 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R.  
§§ 201.155(a), 201.220(f), 201.221(f) and 201.310. 
This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondents personally or by certified mail. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial 
decision no later than 300 days from the date of service of this Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of 
the Commission’s Rules of Practice. 
In the absence of an appropriate waiver, no officer or employee of the Commission engaged 
in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in this or any factually related 
proceeding will be permitted to participate or advise in the decision of this matter, except as witness 
or counsel in proceedings held pursuant to notice.  Since this proceeding is not “rule making” within 
the meaning of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not deemed subject to the 
provisions of Section 553 delaying the effective date of any final Commission action. 
            By            the            Commission.            
        Nancy M. Morris
        Secretary 
4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Before the 


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

September 13, 2007 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 
File No. 3-12796 

In the Matter of 

STORY & COMPANY, P.C.,  
and BRIAN L. STORY, CPA, 

Respondents. 

ORDER INSTITUTING  
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4C OF THE 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
AND RULE 102(e) OF THE 
COMMISSION’S RULES OF 
PRACTICE, AND NOTICE OF 
HEARING 

I. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that public 
administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 4C of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 
against Story & Company, P.C. (“Story & Company”) and Brian L. Story, CPA (“Story”) 
(collectively “Respondents”). 

II. 

After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that: 

A. RESPONDENTS 

1. Story & Company, P.C. is a Colorado professional corporation and public 
accounting firm headquartered in Centennial, Colorado.  Story & Company prepared and issued an 
audit report dated February 11, 2004, in connection with its audit of Regatta Capital Partners, Inc. 
(“Regatta Capital”). 

2. Brian L. Story, CPA, 67, of Littleton, Colorado, is a certified public accountant 
licensed in Colorado and Nebraska since 1974.  As engagement partner on the Regatta Capital 
engagement, Story participated in the preparation and issuance of the February 11, 2004 Regatta 
Capital audit report.   



B.	 OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES 

1. Regatta Capital is a Colorado corporation based in Denver, Colorado.  During the 
relevant period, Regatta Capital’s common stock traded on the OTC Bulletin Board.  Its common 
stock is registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act.  Regatta 
Capital reported $2,128 in revenue and total assets of $9,115 for its fiscal year ended 2003.  
Regatta Capital has at all relevant times been an issuer as defined by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 
2002 (the “Act”).  During the relevant period, Regatta was known as Monet Entertainment, Ltd. 

C. 	 FAILURE TO REGISTER WITH THE PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING 
OVERSIGHT BOARD 

1. Section 102(a) of the Act prohibits any person that is not a registered public 
accounting firm with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) from 
preparing or issuing, or participating in the preparation or issuance of, any audit report with respect 
to any public reporting company after October 22, 2003. 

2. At no point did any of the Respondents register with the PCAOB as a public 
accounting firm. 

3. Story & Company audited Regatta Capital’s financial statements included in 
Regatta Capital’s annual report for fiscal year 2003 on Form 10-KSB, filed with the Commission 
on March 29, 2004.   

4. Story & Company prepared and issued an audit report dated February 11, 2004, 
which was included in Regatta Capital’s Form 10-KSB.   

5. Story participated in auditing the financial statements included in Regatta Capital’s 
annual report for fiscal year 2003 on Form 10-KSB, filed with the Commission on March 29, 
2004. 

6. Story participated in the preparation and issuance of an audit report dated February 
11, 2004, which was included in Regatta Capital’s Form 10-KSB. 

7. Story & Company received $1,100 for conducting an audit of Regatta Capital’s 
financial statements for its fiscal year 2003 and for issuing an audit report on those financial 
statements.  

D.	 VIOLATIONS 

1. Section 4C(a) of the Exchange Act provides, in relevant part, that the Commission 
“may censure any person, or deny, temporarily or permanently, to any person the privilege of 
appearing or practicing before the Commission in any way, if that person is found by the 
Commission … (1) not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others … or (3) to have 
willfully violated, or willfully aided and abetted the violation of, any provision of the securities 
laws or the rules and regulations issued thereunder.” 

2




2. Rule 102(e)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice provides that the 
Commission “may censure a person or deny, temporarily or permanently, the privilege of 
appearing or practicing before it in any way to any person who is found by the Commission ... (i) 
not to possess the requisite qualifications to represent others … or (iii) to have willfully violated … 
any provision of the Federal securities laws or the rules and regulations thereunder.” 

3. Section 102(a) of the Act provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person that is 
not a registered public accounting firm to prepare or issue, or to participate in the preparation or 
issuance of, any audit report with respect to any issuer.” 

4. Because Story & Company had not registered with the PCAOB, it lacked “the 
requisite qualifications” to issue an audit report dated February 11, 2004. 

5. By participating in the preparation or issuance of an audit report after October 22, 
2003 by an audit firm that was not registered with the PCAOB, Story lacked “the requisite 
qualifications to represent others.” 

6. In violation of Section 102(a) of the Act, Story & Company prepared and issued an 
audit report on the financial statements of a reporting company after October 22, 2003, without 
first registering with the PCAOB.  Story & Company thus also willfully violated the federal 
securities laws. 

III. 

In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commission deems it 
necessary and appropriate that public administrative proceedings be instituted to determine:    

A. Whether the allegations set forth in Section II are true and, in connection therewith, 
to afford Respondents an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations; and 

B. Whether, pursuant to Sections 4C(a)(1) and 4C(a)(3) of the Exchange Act and Rules 
102(e)(1)(i) and 102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Story & Company should be 
censured by the Commission or temporarily or permanently denied the privilege of appearing or 
practicing before the Commission. 

C. Whether, pursuant to Section 4C(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 102(e)(1)(i) of 
the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Story should be censured by the Commission or temporarily or 
permanently denied the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission. 

IV. 

IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on the questions 
set forth in Section III hereof shall be convened at a time and place to be fixed, and before an 
Administrative Law Judge to be designated by further order as provided by Rule 110 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.110.   

3




IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file an Answer to the allegations 
contained in this Order within ten (10) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule 220 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220.  

If Respondents fail to file the directed answer, or fail to appear at a hearing after being duly 
notified, the Respondents may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be determined against 
them upon consideration of this Order, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true as 
provided by Rules 155(a), 220(f), 221(f) and 310 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R.  
§§ 201.155(a), 201.220(f), 201.221(f) and 201.310. 

This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondents personally or by certified mail. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial 
decision no later than 300 days from the date of service of this Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of 
the Commission’s Rules of Practice. 

In the absence of an appropriate waiver, no officer or employee of the Commission engaged 
in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in this or any factually related 
proceeding will be permitted to participate or advise in the decision of this matter, except as witness 
or counsel in proceedings held pursuant to notice.  Since this proceeding is not “rule making” within 
the meaning of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not deemed subject to the 
provisions of Section 553 delaying the effective date of any final Commission action. 

 By the Commission. 

        Nancy  M.  Morris
        Secretary  

4