-KLM Securities and Exchange Commission et al v. Geiger, No. 1:2010cv00128 - Document 69 (D. Colo. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER re: Consent and Proposed Final Judgment 67 and [67-1] MOTION. The Court hereby ORDERS that the parties submit no later than twenty (20) days from the date of this order a stipulation (see Order for details). By Judge David M. Ebel on 12/09/2010. (sah, )

Download PDF
-KLM Securities and Exchange Commission et al v. Geiger Doc. 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-00128-DME-KLM (Consolidated with 10-cv-00129) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. EUGENE C. GEIGER, Defendant. ORDER RE CONSENT AND PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT (DOCS. 67, 67-1) On November 18, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a "Consent of Defendant Eugene C. Geiger" (Doc. 67) and a "Final Judgment as to Defendant Eugene C. Geiger" (Doc. 67-1) (together, "Consent"). In this filing, Defendant Eugene Geiger consents to the imposition of a proposed final judgment against him that provides, inter alia, as follows: (1) Defendant is permanently enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly, (a) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (b) Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; (2) Defendant is liable for disgorgement of $261,110, "representing profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged" in the complaints, together with prejudgment interest in the amount of $221,466; and (3) Defendant must pay a civil penalty of $220,000. (Docs. 67, 67-1.) Having considered the Consent, the Court hereby ORDERS that the parties submit no later than twenty (20) days from the date of this order a stipulation that addresses the following: Dockets.Justia.com 1. Whether the Consent is fair, adequate, legal, and in the public interest; 2. The calculation of the disgorgement amount of $261,110 (and the prejudgment interest amount of $221,466) as set forth in the Consent, including the factors that were considered by the parties in determining the disgorgement amount; 3. The intended recipients of the disgorged funds, and the amount(s) to be distributed to these recipients; 4. The identification, either by name or by category, of any victims who have suffered loss because of Defendant's agreed-upon conduct, including a description of such losses with such specificity as is reasonably available to the parties; and 5. Whether notice has been provided to any victims of Defendant's conduct and whether any responses have been received. Dated this 9th day of December , 2010. BY THE COURT: s/ David M. Ebel U. S. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 2

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.