X hits on this document

PDF document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA - page 14 / 18

59 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

14 / 18

effecting transactions in securities, or induced or attempted to induce the purchase or sale of

securities, without registering as broker-dealers in accordance with Section 15(b) of the

Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(b).

51.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Cornide and de la Riva, directly and

indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 15(a)(1) of the

Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)(1).

COUNT V

Violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act

(Against Defendants Pension Fund, PFA Assurance, Cornide, and de la Riva)

  • 52.

    The Commission repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 39 of its Complaint.

  • 53.

    Defendants Pension Fund, PFA Assurance, Cornide, and de la Riva, as investment

advisers, directly or indirectly, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of

interstate commerce: (1) employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud clients or prospective

clients; and (2) engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which operated as a

fraud or deceit upon clients or prospective clients.

54.

Defendants Pension Fund, PFA Assurance, Cornide, and de la Riva knew or were

reckless or negligent in not knowing that the alleged representations and omissions were false

and misleading.

55.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Pension Fund, PFA Assurance, Cornide,

and de la Riva have violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Sections 206(1) and

(2) of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2).

14

Document info
Document views59
Page views59
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 17:31:05 UTC 2017
Pages18
Paragraphs533
Words4354

Comments