Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sloan

369 F. Supp. 996
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 7, 1974
Docket71 Civ. 2695
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 369 F. Supp. 996 (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sloan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sloan, 369 F. Supp. 996 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

ROBERT J. WARD, District Judge.

On June 17, 1971, plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) filed a complaint against defendants Samuel H. Sloan (“Sloan”) and Samuel H. Sloan & Co. (“Sloan & Co.”) seeking injunctive and other relief for alleged violations of Sections 15(b)(1), 15(c)(3) and 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78o(b)(l), 78o (c)(3) and 78q(a), and Rules 17 C. F.R. 240.15bl-2, 15c3-l, 17a-3 and 17a-4 promulgated thereunder (“Broker-Dealer Registration”, “Net Capital” and “Bookkeeping Rules”).

Thereafter, on June 24, 1971, this Court entered an order, on’ consent, which preliminarily enjoined defendants from further violations of the net capital and bookkeeping requirements of the federal securities laws.

The action was tried, non-jury, in December 1973 and the Court now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1

Findings of Fact

1. The Commission is authorized to bring this action pursuant to Section 21(e) of the Exchange Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(e).

2. Sloan & Co. is a sole proprietorship and had its office and place of busi *998 ness at 120 Liberty Street, New York, New York. The office was closed on August 16, 1973. Sloan & Co. has been registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(b), since May 10, 1970. Sloan is the sole proprietor and manager of Sloan & Co.

I. Violations of Section 17 (a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78q(a), and Rule 17ar-3 promulgated thereunder.

3. During January and February 1971, Arthur Bruder (“Bruder”), an investigator on the staff of the Commission, visited the office of Sloan & Co. for the purpose of determining whether the books and records of Sloan & Co. were being maintained properly and on a current basis.

4. During March, April, May, June and August 1971, Sheldon Kanoff (“Kanoff”), also an investigator on the staff of the Commission, visited the office of Sloan & Co. for the same purpose.

5. During May, June and August 1973, George Appoldt (“Appoldt”), another investigator on the staff of the Commission, visited the office of Sloan & Co. for a similar purpose.

6. On August 16, 1973, Kanoff, accompanied by Jerome Selvers (“Selvers”), an attorney on the staff of the Commission, visited the office of Sloan & Co. for the same purpose.

7. As a result of his January 1971 examination of Sloan & Co.’s books and records, Bruder determined that as of January 15, 1971, Sloan & Co. failed to maintain properly and keep current the following books and records: (a) General Ledger — not properly maintained in that capital and income and expense items were improperly recorded; (b) Trading Account — not maintained currently; (c) Trial Balance — not prepared; (d) Account Record of bank balances — not maintained; (e) Fail to Receive Ledger; Fail to Deliver Ledger; Stock Record — not maintained currently.

8. Sloan was informed by the Commission of Bruder’s determination and was asked to furnish a trial balance and supporting schedules. A trial balance was submitted on January 18, 1971. However, supporting schedules showing firm inventory and fails to deliver and receive were not furnished and Bruder was unable to make a capital computation based on the submission.

9. On February 25, 1971, Bruder observed that neither the stock record nor the customer ledger of Sloan & Co. was up to date, and, since capital was not properly recorded, that the general ledger was inaccurate.

10. On March 19, 1971, Kanoff observed that the books and records of Sloan & Co. indicated a capital contribution of $58,000 by Mr. Joseph Iny. In fact, Mr. Iny never contributed capital to Sloan & Co. but was, instead, a customer of the firm. In addition, although the books and records of the firm included shares of Kaiser Steel Industries in the firm trading account, these shares were at all times part of Mr. Iny’s customer account.

11. On April 8, 1971, Kanoff observed that Sloan & Co. did not have a complete set of books and records. All that he found were machine run debit and credit slips from which a capital contribution could not be prepared and which did not provide the information which is to be included in books and records required to be maintained under Rule 17a-3.

12. On May 6, 1971, Kanoff requested but did not obtain the delivery tickets relating to sales and, on June 9, 1971, Kanoff requested but did not obtain a trial balance as of the end of May 1971.

13. On August 12, 1971, Kanoff observed that the general ledger of Sloan & Co. was only posted through July 31, 1971, in violation of Rule 17a~3. This was less than two months after Sloan & Co. and Sloan had consented to a preliminary injunction enjoining them from further violations of the rules.

*999 14. Moreover, the firm’s trading inventory submitted to the Commission in August 1971 was inaccurate, in that it included certain securities which had been transferred to the firm of J. S. Love & Co., and therefore, were not in the possession of Sloan & Co.

15. Sloan & Co. did not prepare monthly capital computations from January 1, 1971 through December 31, 1971, as required by Rule 17a-3.

16. On May 29 and 30, 1973, Appoldt observed entries on the books and records of Sloan & Co. indicating payments as consulting fees but no entries reflecting employees’ salaries. Attempts to verify these entries were unsuccessful. On the other hand, Hafdis Simon-arson testified that she was employed by Sloan & Co. from September 1972 to May 1973 and that there was at least one other employee, Johanna Baldursttir.

17. On August 2, 1973, Appoldt observed that the firm’s books and records were not current as they were only posted through July 30, 1973.

18. The trial balance submitted by Sloan & Co. as at August 2, 1973 fails to disclose trades in Canadian Javelin, Ltd. (“Canadian Javelin”) stock. In addition, the trial balance fails to disclose that shares of Canadian Javelin were borrowed by Sloan & Co. and were, in fact, owed to other broker-dealers.

19. On August 16, 1973, Appoldt visited Sloan & Co. to inspect the firm’s capital computations. Sloan did not furnish them and informed him that he would bring them to the Commission’s New York Regional Office later that day. When Sloan failed to appear at the Commission’s office, Kanoff and Selvers went to Sloan & Co.’s offices and asked Sloan for the firm’s capital computations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
369 F. Supp. 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-sloan-nysd-1974.