Broker-Dealer Litigation - Greenberg Traurig LLP

disgorgement of $306,412, prejudgment interest of $47,442, and a $130,000 civil penalty. In a
prior administrative proceeding, the Commission barred Vianna from association.
In re Konaxis, Release No. 64298, 2011 SEC LEXIS 1334 (Apr. 13, 2011).
Q.1.a
The Commission accepted an offer of settlement from Konaxis, a former registered
representative with a registered broker-dealer. Konaxis was also an advisory account manager
for an affiliate of the broker-dealer and a registered investment adviser representative. In an
earlier action brought by the Commission in federal court, the court entered a consent judgment
against Konaxis, permanently enjoining him from future violations of the anti-fraud provisions
of the federal securities laws, and barring him from participating in an offering of penny stock.
The Commission’s complaint alleged that Konaxis defrauded one of his largest individual
customers by churning at least three of the customer’s brokerage accounts, disregarding the
customer’s interests and earning approximately $550,000 in commissions. The Commission
barred Konaxis from association.
Q.1.a
In re MMR Inv. Bankers, LLC, Release No. 64622, 2011 SEC LEXIS 1963 (June 8, 2011); In re
MMR Investment Bankers, LLC, Release No. 64623, 2011 SEC LEXIS 1964 (June 8, 2011); In
re MMR Investment Bankers, LLC, Release No. 64624, 2011 SEC LEXIS 1965 (June 8, 2011);
In re MMR Investment Bankers, LLC, Release No. 64625, 2011 SEC LEXIS 1966 (June 8,
2011); In re MMR Investment Bankers, LLC, Release No. 64626, 2011 SEC LEXIS 1967 (June
8, 2011).
The Commission accepted offers of settlement from MMR Investment Bankers LLC, a
registered broker-dealer (the “Firm”), Martin, its president and majority owner, Rankin, its vicepresident
and assistant compliance officer, and Hubert and Fimreite, registered representatives at
the Firm. According to the Commission, Martin and Rankin assisted in the preparation of
disclosure documents for certain private placement debenture offerings, and Hubert and Fimreite
recommended and sold the debentures to customers. Respondents were reckless in not knowing
of material omissions in the disclosure documents, including that Martin and Rankin had created
a new company, in which Martin, Rankin, Fimreite, and Hubert’s wife owned shares, to manage
the proceeds of the debenture sales, that this company received management fees that were
charged to the offering companies, and that Martin Rankin, Hubert and Fimreite had received
shares in some of the offering companies. Additionally, Respondents were reckless in not
knowing that the Firm was selling the debentures to customers for whom they were unsuitable.
The Commission ordered the Firm and individual respondents to cease and desist from
committing or causing any violations and future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5 and
17a-3(a)(17)(i)(B)(1) thereunder. The Commission also censured the Firm and revoked its
registration. Based on a sworn statement of financial condition, the Commission declined to
impose a penalty against the Firm. The Commission barred the individual respondents from
association and from participating in any offering of a penny stock, ordered Martin to pay a
402