SEC v. Gerald D. Kegley; and Prism Financial Services, LLC, No. LR-22361, Northern District of Georgia (May 8, 2012) — Press Release

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 22361 / May 8, 2012 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gerald D. Kegley, et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-1605 (N.D. Ga) SEC Charges Arizona Resident with Securities Fraud The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") filed a civil injunctive action in Atlanta, Georgia on May 8, 2102, alleging that Gerald D. Kegley ("Kegley") and the company he operates, Prism Financial Services, LLC ("Prism"), participated in a fraudulent "Prime Bank" scheme that violated the antifraud and securities and broker dealer registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least April 8, 2010 through at least August 20, 2010, the defendants were directly responsible for introducing six individuals, who invested $1.95 million, to the fraudulent scheme. The complaint alleges that in furtherance of the scheme, the defendants forwarded misrepresentations made by others to investors. These misrepresentations included: 1) that investors could draw upon bank issued guarantees worth millions of dollars without having to repay the withdrawn funds; and 2) that investor funds would be held in escrow until the bank guarantees were issued. The complaint alleges that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that both of these representations were false because no such bank guarantees existed and investor funds were misappropriated immediately upon receipt. Defendants also misrepresented that they would be paid commissions only once the investor received the bank guarantee. In fact, defendants were paid commissions relatively soon after the investors transferred the money. Defendants further told investors that they had previously worked on a successful bank guarantee program. Defendants, however, had actually reported this purportedly successful bank guarantee program to the Federal Bureau of Investigation because they believed it was a fraud. In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that the defendants violated Sections 5(a) and (c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Commission also alleges that defendants aided and abetted violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. SEC Complaint

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 22361 / May 8, 2012 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gerald D. Kegley, et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-1605 (N.D. Ga) SEC Charges Arizona Resident with Securities Fraud The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") filed a civil injunctive action in Atlanta, Georgia on May 8, 2102, alleging that Gerald D. Kegley ("Kegley") and the company he operates, Prism Financial Services, LLC ("Prism"), participated in a fraudulent "Prime Bank" scheme that violated the antifraud and securities and broker dealer registration provisions of the federal securities laws. The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least April 8, 2010 through at least August 20, 2010, the defendants were directly responsible for introducing six individuals, who invested $1.95 million, to the fraudulent scheme. The complaint alleges that in furtherance of the scheme, the defendants forwarded misrepresentations made by others to investors. These misrepresentations included: 1) that investors could draw upon bank issued guarantees worth millions of dollars without having to repay the withdrawn funds; and 2) that investor funds would be held in escrow until the bank guarantees were issued. The complaint alleges that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that both of these representations were false because no such bank guarantees existed and investor funds were misappropriated immediately upon receipt. Defendants also misrepresented that they would be paid commissions only once the investor received the bank guarantee. In fact, defendants were paid commissions relatively soon after the investors transferred the money. Defendants further told investors that they had previously worked on a successful bank guarantee program. Defendants, however, had actually reported this purportedly successful bank guarantee program to the Federal Bureau of Investigation because they believed it was a fraud. In its Complaint, the Commission alleges that the defendants violated Sections 5(a) and (c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Commission also alleges that defendants aided and abetted violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. SEC Complaint