-VCF United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ruettiger et al, No. 2:2011cv02011 - Document 23 (D. Nev. 2012)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of United States Securities and Exchange Commission against Gary J. Yocom. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/19/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-VCF United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ruettiger et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA – LAS VEGAS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Case No. 2:11-cv-02011-GMN-VCF Plaintiff, __________________ v. DANIEL E. RUETTIGER, ET AL., Defendants. FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT GARY J. YOCOM The Securities and Exchange Commission having filed an Amended Complaint (“the Complaint”) and Defendant Gary J. Yocom having entered a general appearance; consented to the Court’s jurisdiction over Defendant and the subject matter of this action; consented to entry of this Final Judgment without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint (except as to jurisdiction); waived findings of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any right to appeal from this Final Judgment: I. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant and Defendant's agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77e] by, directly or indirectly, in the absence of any applicable exemption: (a) Unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, making use of any Dockets.Justia.com means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to sell such security through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise; (b) Unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, carrying or causing to be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale; or (c) Making use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, unless a registration statement has been filed with the Commission as to such security, or while the registration statement is the subject of a refusal order or stop order or (prior to the effective date of the registration statement) any public proceeding or examination under Section 8 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77h]. II. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant is barred for period of three (3) years from the date if this Final Judgment from participating in an offering of penny stock, including engaging in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for purposes of issuing, trading, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock. A penny stock is any equity security that has a price of less than five dollars, except as provided in Rule 3a51-1 under the Exchange Act [17 C.F.R. 240.3a51-1]. III. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant 2 is liable for disgorgement of $166,250, representing profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $20,608, for a total of $186,858. Based on Defendant’s sworn representations in his Statement of Financial Condition (dated July 26, 2011), and other documents and information submitted to the Commission, however, the Court is not ordering Defendant to pay a civil penalty and payment of all of the disgorgement and pre-judgment interest thereon is waived. The determination not to impose a civil penalty and to waive payment of all disgorgement and pre-judgment interest is contingent upon the accuracy and completeness of Defendant's Statement of Financial Condition. If at any time following the entry of this Final Judgment the Commission obtains information indicating that Defendant’s representations to the Commission concerning his assets, income, liabilities, or net worth were fraudulent, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete in any material respect as of the time such representations were made, the Commission may, at its sole discretion and without prior notice to Defendant, petition the Court for an order requiring Defendant to pay the unpaid portion of the disgorgement, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon, and the maximum civil penalty allowable under the law. In connection with any such petition, the only issue shall be whether the financial information provided by Defendant was fraudulent, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete in any material respect as of the time such representations were made. In its petition, the Commission may move this Court to consider all available remedies, including, but not limited to, ordering Defendant to pay funds or assets, directing the forfeiture of any assets, or sanctions for contempt of this Final Judgment. The Commission may also request additional discovery. Defendant may not, by way of defense to such petition: (1) challenge the validity of the Consent or this Final Judgment; (2) contest the allegations in the Complaint filed by the Commission; (3) assert that payment of disgorgement, pre-judgment and 3 post-judgment interest or a civil penalty should not be ordered; (4) contest the amount of disgorgement and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; (5) contest the imposition of the maximum civil penalty allowable under the law; or (6) assert any defense to liability or remedy, including, but not limited to, any statute of limitations defense. IV. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that based on Defendant’s agreement to cooperate in a Commission investigation, the Court is not ordering Defendant to pay a civil penalty. If at any time following the entry of the Final Judgment the Commission obtains information indicating that Defendant knowingly provided materially false or misleading information or materials to the Commission or in a related proceeding, the Commission may, at its sole discretion and without prior notice to the Defendant, petition the Court for an order requiring Defendant to pay a civil penalty. In connection with any such petition and at any hearing held on such a motion: (a) Defendant will be precluded from arguing that he did not violate the federal securities laws as alleged in the Complaint; (b) Defendant may not challenge the validity of the Judgment, this Consent, or any related Undertakings; (c) the allegations of the Complaint, solely for the purposes of such motion, shall be accepted as and deemed true by the Court; and (d) the Court may determine the issues raised in the motion on the basis of affidavits, declarations, excerpts of sworn deposition or investigative testimony, and documentary evidence without regard to the standards for summary judgment contained in Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under these circumstances, the parties may take discovery, including discovery from appropriate non-parties. V. 4 V. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Consent is incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein, and that Defendant shall comply with all of the undertakings and agreements set forth therein. VI. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Final Judgment. VII. There being no just reason for delay, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Judgment forthwith and without further notice. DATED this 19th day of January, 2012. Dated: ______________ ____________________________________ UNITED________________________________ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Gloria M. Navarro United States District Judge 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
