|
We do not buy
or sell
viatical contracts




(not the actual cover)

In sympathy
with people
from 86 nations
who lost loved ones
on 9-11 | |
SEC v. KEITH LA MONDA
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 15411 / July 11, 1997 S.E.C. V. CLYDE KEITH LAMONDA and CD ALTERNATIVES, INC., Case No. 97-857-CIV-ORL-19 (M.D.
Fla.) The Securities and Exchange Commission ( Commission ) announced today the filing of
a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
charging CD Alternatives, Inc., a Florida corporation ( CD Alternatives ) and Clyde Keith
LaMonda ( LaMonda ), its President and sole shareholder (collectively, Defendants ), with
having made false statements concerning the safety of corporate notes. In addition, the
Commission s Complaint charges that Defendants acted as broker-dealers of securities while
not registered with the Commission. The Complaint alleges that Defendants raised over
$4,000,000 for the companies that issued the securities, and obtained at least $89,000 in
commissions on the sale of those securities. LaMonda is a resident of Altamonte Springs, Florida. CD Alternatives has offices in
Winter Park, Florida. CD Alternatives is a successor corporation to The C.D. Exchange
Limited, Inc. ( CD Exchange ), a Florida corporation that has been administratively
dissolved by the State of Florida. According to the Complaint, from approximately March 1994 to May 1995, LaMonda and
CD Alternatives held seminars at which they solicited insurance agents to sell interest-
bearing corporate notes issued by Direct Participation Services Inc., d/b/a Government
Financial ( Government Financial ), a California business, and by various companies
associated with James G. Freeman, a California resident ( Freeman Companies ). LaMonda
and CD Alternatives received a commission from Government Financial and from the Freeman
Companies for each investment sold by the insurance agents whom they enlisted to sell the
securities. The Complaint further alleges that during their seminars, Defendants represented
that the notes were safe investments. In fact, the investments were not safe and
investors in all of the companies lost all or most of their investment. The Commission seeks permanent injunctions against the Defendants, prohibiting
further violations of the antifraud and broker-dealer registration provisions of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. (15 U.S.C. 77(q)(a); 15
U.S.C. 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5; and 15 U.S.C. 78o(a)(1)). The Complaint also
requests that Defendants disgorge their ill-gotten proceeds and pay civil monetary
penalties for their misconduct.
| |
To
Order Books
Click links
at the bottom
of the page

|