Securities & Exchange Commission v. BIH Corporation et al

Filing 206

OPINION AND ORDER granting 202 Motion for Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Wayne A. Burmaster, Jr. as more fully set forth in the Opinion and Order. The Clerk shall withhold the entry of judgment pending submission by the SEC of a motion within 60 days regarding the amount of civil penalties. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of the judgment upon entry. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/14/2014. (MAW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SECURITIES
COMMISSION,

&

EXCHANGE

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:10-cv-577-FtM-29DNF

BIH CORPORATION, WAYNE A.
BURMASTER, EDWARD W. HAYTER,
NORTH BAY SOUTH CORPORATION,
THE CADDO CORPORATION, and
BEAVER
CREEK
FINANCIAL
CORPORATION,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Default Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Against
Wayne

A.

Burmaster,

Jr.

(Doc.

#202)

filed

on

May

2,

2014.

Defendant Wayne A. Burmaster filed a Response (Doc. #204) on May
20, 2014.

The Court finds that an evidentiary hearing on the

motion is not required in this case and will render a decision
based on the documents submitted.
I.
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (Plaintiff or
Commission)

filed

a

five-count

Complaint

(Doc.

#1)

against

Defendants Wayne A. Burmaster, Jr. (Burmaster) and others for
violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act
and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On May 8, 2012, Burmaster filed his Amended Answer and
Affirmative Defenses and a Cross-claim.

(Doc. #93.)

On May 29,

2012 the Commission filed a motion to strike Burmaster’s amended
answer and affirmative defenses, which Burmaster responded to on
August 8, 2012.

(Docs. ##100, 108.)

Subsequently, the Court

granted the motion to strike in part and denied it in part, by
among

other

treating

things,

other

striking

affirmative

numerous

defenses

as

affirmative
denials,

defenses,

and

Burmaster’s counter claims and third party complaints.

striking
(Doc.

#145.)
By Court Orders (Docs. ##170, 175), the parties were to meet
and

confer

to

prepare

the

Final

Joint

Pretrial

Statement.

Burmaster, however, failed to attend the meeting or participate.
(Doc. #178.)

The Court gave Burmaster an opportunity to show

cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to
cooperate and warned him that his failure to show cause would
result in striking his Amended Answer and remaining affirmative
defenses.

(Doc. #180.)

order to show cause.

Burmaster did not respond to the Court’s

On March 3, 2014, the Commission notified

the Court of Burmaster’s failure to show cause. (Doc. #182.)
Thereafter,

the

Court

struck

Burmaster’s

remaining affirmative defenses. (Doc. #185.)
the

Commission

moved

for

entry

- 2 -

of

Amended

Answer

and

On March 11, 2014,

clerk’s

default

against

Burmaster.

(Doc. #186.)1

On April 4, 2014, the Magistrate Judge

issued an Order granting the Commission’s Motion for Entry of a
Clerk’s Default, and the clerk entered a default against Burmaster
on April 8, 2014.

(Docs. ##199-200.)

Therefore, plaintiff has

complied with the necessary prerequisite under Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(a) for a default judgment.
II.
“A defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s wellpleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the
judgment, and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus
established. [ ] A default judgment is unassailable on the merits,
but only so far as it is supported by well-pleaded allegations. [
] A default defendant may, on appeal, challenge the sufficiency of
the complaint, even if he may not challenge the sufficiency of the
proof.”

Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561

F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Deeming

all

allegations

in

the

Complaint

(Doc.

#1)

as

admitted, Burmaster and Edward W. Hayter (Hayter) implemented a
“pump-and-dump” scheme involving the sale of unregistered shares

1

The Commission filed its Motion for Summary Judgment against
Burmaster and others on March 2, 2012. (Doc. #67.) On March 13,
2014, the Court denied without prejudice the Commission’s Motion
for Summary Judgment as to Burmaster to allow the Commission “to
move for default and default judgment” against him. (Doc. #189,
pp. 14-15.)
- 3 -

of BIH Corporation’s (BIH) stock to the investing public.

BIH was

a penny stock and claimed to be a holding company specializing in
the restaurant and hospitality industry.
that

an

individual

named

Cris

BIH’s website claimed

Galo,

an

entrepreneur,” was the president and CEO of BIH.

“accomplished
In reality Galo

never existed and was simply an alter ego of Burmaster and Hayter.
Under the guise of the fictitious Galo, Burmaster and Hayter
controlled every aspect of BIH.
In order to effectuate the pump-and-dump scheme, Burmaster
and Hayter made numerous material misrepresentations in the form
of fraudulent press releases issued by BIH:


On April 22, 2008, BIH announced that it had agreed to acquire
Baron International (Baron), a company which builds
restaurants and sells beverage systems and equipment. Though
BIH claimed that the acquisition cost “several million
dollars,” in actuality the purchase price was much lower.



On April 29, 2008, BIH announced that Baron was awarded a
contract for the complete installation of beverage systems
for all fifty concessions locations at Citi Field in New York
City.
BIH issued additional press releases on June 2 and
June 19, 2008 in which they touted Citi Field as a client.
In actuality, Baron had subcontracted to install only the
beer dispensing equipment at Citi Field and the contract was
cancelled prior to the June 19th press release.



BIH issued multiple press releases discussing a purported
buyback program for BIH shares which were false and misleading
because Burmaster and Hayter were simultaneously flooding the
market with unregistered BIH shares.



On June 25 and 26, 2008, BIH issued press releases announcing
that Baron would sell for between 19 and 23 cents a share and
if the sale was completed, BIH would pay a one-time cash
dividend of between 7 and 9 cents a share. On August 19,
2008, another press release was issued regarding the “pending
sale” and claimed additional revenues Baron generated would
- 4 -

create a higher sales price. On November 11, 2008, a press
release was issued claiming another purchase price increase.
These press releases were false and misleading because Baron
had not obtained any additional revenue or new accounts
sufficient to generate a higher sales price.


Between December 7, 2008 and January 12, 2009, BIH issued
several press releases announcing plans to pay a stock and
cash dividend.
These press releases were false and
misleading because BIH did not have sufficient funds to pay
the promised dividend and had not provided the FINRA/NASDAQ
dividend department with the requisite notice to issue a cash
dividend.



Additionally, BIH issued numerous press releases quoting Galo
and describing actions taken by Galo. These press releases
were false and misleading because Galo does not exist.

As a result of these false and misleading press releases, Burmaster
and Hayter were able to dramatically increase the price and trading
volume of BIH shares.
From 2008 through March 2009, Burmaster and Hayter sold
unregistered shares of BIH stock to various companies.

One of

those companies, North Bay South Corporation (North Bay), was
controlled by Burmaster.

No registration statement has been filed

or is in effect with the Commission in connection with these sales,
and BIH, Burmaster, and Hayter were not subject to any exemption
from registration.

BIH received little or no consideration for

issuing tens of millions of shares to those companies.

In turn,

the companies dumped more than $1 million of BIH stock was on
“unwitting” investors.

The companies retained a portion of the

illegally obtained sales proceeds and sent the remaining funds to
entities controlled by Burmaster and Hayter.

- 5 -

The five-count Complaint alleges that Burmaster and others
violated the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.

Count I states that no

registration statement was filed or in effect with the Commission
and Burmaster and others sold securities, carried securities, or
offered to sell or offered to buy securities through interstate
commerce without a registration statement in violation of Sections
5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.
Count

II

states

that

Burmaster,

Hayter,

and

BIH

used

interstate commerce to offer or sell securities while knowingly,
willfully, or recklessly employing devices, schemes, or artifices
to defraud in violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act.
Count III states that Burmaster, Hayter, and BIH obtained
money or property by means of untrue statements of material facts
and omissions or engaged in transactions, practices and courses of
business to operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers and
prospective purchasers through interstate commerce in violation of
Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act.
Count IV states that Burmaster, Hayter, and BIH, through
interstate commerce, obtained money or property by means of untrue
statements

of

material

facts

and

omissions

or

engaged

in

transactions, practices and courses of business to operate as a
fraud or deceit upon purchasers and prospective purchasers in

- 6 -

violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act
Rule 10b-5.
Count V states that BIH used interstate commerce to offer or
sell

securities

while

knowingly,

willfully,

or

recklessly

employing devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud, and made
untrue statements of material facts and omissions or engaged in
transactions, practices and courses of business to operate as a
fraud or deceit upon purchasers and prospective purchasers in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act
Rule 10b-5.

Count V further states that Burmaster and Hayter

knowingly, willfully, or recklessly aided and abetted BIH in
commission of those violations.
Upon review, the Court finds that the facts in the Complaint
establish that the Commission is entitled to a default judgment
against Burmaster on all five counts.
III.
The

Commission

seeks

declaratory

relief

that

Burmaster

violated federal securities laws, a permanent injunction against
Burmaster from further violations, a disgorgement of all illgotten

gains,

including

prejudgment

interest,

civil

monetary

penalties, an order barring Burmaster from participating in any
future penny stock offerings, and the retention of jurisdiction.
(Doc. #1.)

Burmaster has offered multiple objections to the

Commission’s requested relief.

(Doc. #204.)

- 7 -

A.

Burmaster’s Objection to the Delay in Recommending a Civil
Penalty
The Commission seeks maximum civil money penalties against

Burmaster pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act and
Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act.

However, the Commission does

not yet have approval to recommend a specific penalty amount.
Accordingly, the Commission requests 120 days from the date default
judgment is entered to file a motion recommending a specific
penalty amount.

Burmaster objects to the delay, and argues that

the Commission has waived its right to seek any penalty by not
specifying an amount at this time.

While the Court is sympathetic

to Burmaster’s desire to bring this case to a speedy conclusion,
it is unaware of any legal authority supporting Burmaster’s waiver
argument.
days

from

Accordingly, the Court will grant the Commission sixty
the

date

of

entry

this

Order

to

file

a

motion

recommending a specific penalty amount.
B.

Burmaster’s Objections to Injunctive Relief
Burmaster challenges the Commission’s requested injunctive

relief on two grounds.
seeks

injunctions

First, Burmaster notes that the Commission

against

future

securities

law

violations

applicable to both Burmaster and Burmaster’s “agents, servants,
employees,

attorneys,

and

participation with them.”

all

persons

in

active

concert

or

Burmaster argues that the inclusion of

individuals other than himself renders the requested injunction
impermissibly

vague.

The

Court

- 8 -

disagrees.

The

injunctive

language complained of by Burmaster closely tracks the language of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), and Burmaster does not cite-and the Court
is unaware of—any legal authority holding that such language is
impermissibly vague.
Second, Burmaster argues that the injunctions sought by the
Commission are the type of “obey the law” injunctions prohibited
by the Eleventh Circuit in SEC v. Goble, 682 F.3d 934, 949-52 (11th
Cir. 2012).

While Goble cautions that “obey the law” injunctions

are generally impermissible, the court in Goble explained that in
the context of a SEC civil enforcement action “a broad, but
properly drafted injunction, which largely uses the statutory or
regulatory

language

may

satisfy

the

specificity

requirement

of Rule 65(d) so long as it clearly lets the defendant know what
he is ordered to do or not do.”

Id. at 952.

The Commission’s

proposed injunctions clearly set forth the acts which Burmaster is
ordered not to do.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Commission’s

proposed injunctions comport with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) and,
therefore, the Court will grant the injunctive relief requested by
the Commission.
C.

Burmaster’s Objections to Disgorgement of Ill-Gotten Gains
Burmaster argues that the Commission is not entitled to

disgorgement of ill-gotten gains because (i) the amount of illgotten

gains

is

not

established

by

the

Complaint;

(ii)

the

Commission has not shown that Burmaster actually received the ill-

- 9 -

gotten gains; and (iii) Burmaster cannot pay the amounts to be
disgorged.

However, none of these objections warrant denial of

the Commission’s requested relief.
“In order to be entitled to disgorgement, the SEC needs to
produce only a reasonable approximation of the defendant's illgotten gains, and exactitude is not a requirement.”

SEC v.

Monterosso, No. 13-10341, 2014 WL 2922670, at *8 (11th Cir. June
30, 2014) (quotation omitted).

“Once the SEC has produced a

reasonable approximation of the defendant's unlawfully acquired
assets, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate the SEC's
estimate is not reasonable.”

Id.

Additionally, “it is a well

settled principle that joint and several liability is appropriate
in securities laws cases where two or more individuals or entities
have close relationships in engaging in illegal conduct.”
Calvo, 378 F.3d 1211, 1215 (11th Cir. 2004).

SEC v.

Thus, when parties

act in concert to violate securities law, each party is jointly
and severally liable for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains even if
a particular party did not receive the proceeds.

Monterosso, 2014

WL 2922670, at *8 (“[A] personal financial benefit is not a
prerequisite for joint and several liability.”) (quoting SEC v.
Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1098 (9th Cir.
2010)).
The Commission requests disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in
the amount of $1,137,106 plus interest.

- 10 -

The Commission arrived

at this figure via an accountant’s review of brokerage account
records, wire transfers, and bank account statements from the
companies involved in the pump-and-dump scheme.

(Doc. #67-50.)

Burmaster does not contest the accuracy of the Commission’s figure
or propose his own more accurate calculation.
that

the

Commission’s

calculation

is

Instead, he states

“new

and

surprising”

information that the Court cannot accept as true because it is not
contained in the Complaint.
As an initial matter, the Commission’s calculation of illgotten gains is not new information, as the Commission first
provided it more than two years ago in an affidavit filed in
connection with its motion for summary judgment against Burmaster
and others. (Id.)
surprising

given

Nor is the Commission’s calculation at all
the

facts

stated

in

the

Complaint.

While

Burmaster is technically correct that the exact amount requested
by the Commission, $1,137,106, does not appear in the Complaint,
the Complaint does state that the scheme perpetrated by Burmaster
and others dumped more than 93 million shares of BIH stock for a
total sales price of approximately $1.1 million.
affidavit

simply

approximations.
approximately
plausibly

provides
(Id.)

$1.1

argue

the

figures

underlying

these

Accordingly, as Burmaster has admitted to

million
that

exact

The Commission’s

in

ill-gotten

$1,137,106

is

gains,

not

a

approximation” of the ill-gotten gains in this case.

- 11 -

he

cannot

“reasonable

Likewise,

the

facts

set

out

in

the

Complaint

foreclose

Burmaster’s argument that he cannot be ordered to disgorge illgotten gains that he did not receive.

By virtue of his default,

Burmaster has admitted that he was an integral part of a pump-anddump scheme in which he and Hayter used BIH, North Bay, and other
companies to dump more than $1 million of BIH stock on the
unwitting investing public.

These facts are more than sufficient

to support a finding that Burmaster is jointly and severally liable
with BIH and North Bay.

Accordingly, Burmaster’s contentions that

he did not personally receive the ill-gotten gains, even if true,
do not impact the Commission’s right to full disgorgement from
Burmaster via joint and several liability.

See Monterosso, 2014

WL 2922670, at *8.
Burmaster’s final argument concerning ill-gotten gains is
that the Court must take into account his inability to pay before
ordering

disgorgement.

While

Burmaster

is

correct

that

the

Eleventh Circuit has held that the ability to pay may be one factor
considered in the imposition of a civil penalty for securities law
violations, disgorgement is not a civil penalty and the law is
clear that the Commission is entitled to disgorgement of all illgotten gains irrespective of a defendant’s ability to pay.
v. Warren, 534 F.3d 1368, 1370 (11th Cir. 2008).

SEC

Indeed, “[a]

contrary rule would allow con artists to escape disgorgement
liability by spending their ill-gotten gains—an absurd result.”

- 12 -

Id. at 1370 n.2.

Accordingly, the Court will not reduce the amount

of disgorgement on account of Burmaster’s alleged inability to
pay.
D.

Burmaster’s Objections to a Penny Stock Bar
Finally, Burmaster argues that the facts established by the

Complaint

do

not

Commission.

warrant

The

the

Exchange

penny

Act

stock

authorizes

bar
a

sought
court

to

by

the

order

a penny stock bar “against any person participating in, or, at the
time of the alleged misconduct, who was participating in, an
offering of penny stock, conditionally or unconditionally, and
permanently

or

for

such

period

of

determine.”

time

15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)(A).

as

the

court

shall

The Complaint establishes

that BIH was a penny stock and that Burmaster committed Exchange
Act violations involving BIH stock.

Accordingly, the Complaint

establishes facts sufficient to impose a penny stock bar on
Burmaster.
In sum, Burmaster’s objections do not provide any basis to
deny the Commission its requested relief.

Accordingly, it is

hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's

Motion

for

Default

Judgment

of

Permanent

Injunction and Other Relief Against Wayne A. Burmaster, Jr. (Doc.
#202)

is

GRANTED.

Default

Judgment

- 13 -

is

entered

in

favor

of

Plaintiff and against Defendant Wayne A. Burmaster as to Counts IV as follows:
1.

Wayne A. Burmaster, Jr. and Burmaster’s agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or
participation with them who receive actual notice of this
Judgment by personal service or otherwise are permanently
restrained and enjoined from violating Section 5 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77e,
by, directly or indirectly, in the absence of any applicable
exemption:
a)

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)

2.

unless a registration statement is in effect as to a
security, making use of any 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;

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.

A separate Injunction shall issue as follows:
a)

Wayne A. Burmaster, Jr. and Burmaster’s agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in
active concert or participation with them who receive
actual notice of this Judgment by personal service or
otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined
from
violating
Sections
17(a)(1)-(3)
of
the
Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1)-(3), in the
offer or sale of any security by the use of any means
or instruments of transportation or communication in

- 14 -

interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly
or indirectly:
1)

to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to
defraud;

2)

to obtain money or property by means of any
untrue statement of a material fact or
any
omission of a material fact necessary in order
to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading; or

3)

to engage in any transaction, practice, or
course of business which operates or would
operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser

by, directly or indirectly, (i) creating a false
appearance or otherwise deceiving any person about
the price or trading market for any security, or (ii)
making any false or misleading statement, or
disseminating any false or misleading documents,
materials,
or
information,
concerning
matters
relating to a decision by an investor or prospective
investor to buy or sell securities of any company.

b)

Burmaster, Jr. and Burmaster’s agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and all persons in active
concert or participation with them who receive actual
notice of this Judgment by personal service or
otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined
from violating, directly or indirectly, Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange
Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, by using any means
or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the
mails, or of any facility of any national securities
exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of
any security:
1)

to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to
defraud;

2)

to make any untrue statement of a material fact
or to omit to state a material fact necessary in
order to make the statements made, in the light
of the circumstances under which they were made,

- 15 -

not misleading; or
3)

to engage in any act, practice, or course of
business which operates or would operate as a
fraud or deceit upon any person.

by, directly or indirectly, (i) creating a false
appearance or otherwise deceiving any person about
the price or trading market for any security, or (ii)
making any false or misleading statement, or
disseminating any false or misleading documents,
materials,
or
information,
concerning
matters
relating to a decision by an investor or prospective
investor to buy or sell securities of any company.
c)

Burmaster is jointly and severally liable with
Defendants BIH Corporation and North Bay South
Corporation
for
disgorgement
of
$1,137,106,
representing profits gained as a result of the conduct
alleged in the Complaint, together with prejudgment
interest thereon in the amount of $212,052, for a
total of $1,349,158 (with any payments made by the
other Defendants or Relief Defendants proportionally
reducing
Burmaster’s
total
disgorgement
and
prejudgment amount).
Burmaster shall satisfy this
obligation by paying $1,349,158 to the Securities and
Exchange Commission within 14 days after entry of this
Judgment.
1)

Burmaster may transmit payment electronically to
the Commission, which will provide detailed ACH
transfer/Fedwire instructions upon request.
Payment may also be made directly from a bank
account via Pay.gov through the SEC website at
http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ofm.htm.
Burmaster may also pay by certified check, bank
cashier’s check, or United States postal money
order payable to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which shall be delivered or mailed
to
Enterprise
Services
Center,
Accounts
Receivable
Branch,
6500
South
MacArthur
Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73169 and shall be
accompanied by a letter identifying the case
title, civil action number, and name of this
Court; Burmaster as a Defendant in this action;
and specifying that payment is made pursuant to
this Judgment.

- 16 -

2)

d)

Burmaster
shall
simultaneously
transmit
photocopies of evidence of payment and case
identifying information to the Commission’s
counsel in this action. By making this payment,
Burmaster relinquishes all legal and equitable
right, title, and interest in such funds and no
part of the funds shall be returned to
Burmaster. The Commission shall hold the funds
(collectively, the “Fund”) and may propose a
plan to distribute the Fund subject to the
Court’s approval. The Court shall retain
jurisdiction over the administration of any
distribution of the Fund. If the Commission
staff determines that the Fund will not be
distributed, the Commission shall send the funds
paid pursuant to this Judgment to the United
States Treasury. The Commission may enforce the
Court’s
judgment
for
disgorgement
and
prejudgment interest, by moving for civil
contempt (or through other collection procedures
authorized by law) at any time after fourteen
days following entry of the Judgment. Burmaster
shall
pay
post-judgment
interest
on
any
delinquent amounts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Burmaster is permanently barred 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.

3.

Burmaster shall pay a civil penalty pursuant to Section 20(d)
of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d). The amount of civil
penalty shall be determined by the Court upon motion of the
Commission that the Commission must file within 60 days of
the entry of this Order.

4.

The Court will retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of
the judgment upon entry.
The Clerk shall withhold the entry of judgment in favor of

the Commission and against Defendant Wayne A. Burmaster, Jr.

- 17 -

pending submission of a motion by the Commission concerning the
amount of civil penalties.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of July, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of Record
Wayne A. Burmaster

- 18 -

14th

day