Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 54254 / July 31, 2006

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

I.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Leslie Mersky (“Mersky” or “Respondent”).

II.

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the “Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over him and the subject matter of these 2

proceedings, and the findings contained in Section III.3., below, which are admitted, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (“Order”), as set forth below.

III.

On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that:

1. From June 1987 through at least December 1989, Respondent served, at various times, as an officer, principal shareholder and/or a director of Amglo Industries, Inc. (Amglo) and its subsidiary, Amglobal Corporation (Amglobal). Respondent also controlled brokerage accounts that actively traded in the securities of both companies.

2. During period June 1987 through at least December 1989, Respondent further was associated with Van Pelt, Cahn & Radclif, Inc. (Van Pelt) as its president and a principal shareholder. Van Pelt was a purported investment banking firm which issued news releases and other literature concerning Amglo, Amglobal, and their affiliated companies. Van Pelt, assisted by Mersky, engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others, thereby acting as an unregistered broker.

3. On July 25, 2006, a final judgment was entered by consent against Respondent, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M of the Exchange Act, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mersky, et al., Civil Action Number 93-CV-5200, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

4. The Commission’s complaint alleged that, from January 1988 through June 1989, Respondent participated in an ongoing scheme to sell the worthless securities of Amglo and Amglobal through stock price manipulation, material misrepresentations, and material omissions. The complaint alleged that many of these securities were not registered with the Commission and originated from stock certificates that were either fabricated or improperly issued by the companies or their transfer agents. The complaint further alleged that Respondent and others utilized a fraudulent broker-dealer network to distribute more than $3.4 million in these worthless securities in the over-the-counter market. This fraudulent network channeled the securities from undisclosed brokerage accounts controlled by Respondent and/or others to bona fide public investors.

IV.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent’s Offer. 3

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, that Respondent be, and hereby is barred from association with any broker or dealer;

Any reapplication for association by the Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the satisfaction of any or all of the following: (a) any disgorgement ordered against the Respondent, whether or not the Commission has fully or partially waived payment of such disgorgement; (b) any arbitration award related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; (c) any self-regulatory organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; and (d) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Nancy M. Morris

Secretary

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

           LITIGATION RELEASE NO. 15806 / July 13, 1998

           SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GLENN A. SCHUSTER, ET AL.

SECURITIES

           AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GLENN A. SCHUSTER, ET AL.

           Civil Action No. H-92-3598, USDC/SD TX [HOUSTON]

                The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on

June 26,

           1998, a Final Judgment as to defendant Leslie Mersky ("Mersky")

was

           entered in United States District Court for the Southern District

of

           Texas. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the

Commission's

           complaint, Mersky consented to be permanently enjoined from

future

           violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities

laws

           found in Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section

10(b) of

           the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5 and 10b-6

thereunder.

           The Commission's complaint, filed November 23, 1992, alleged that

Mersky,

           and others,  participated in a scheme to distribute and

manipulate the

           securities of Bancus Richmond, Inc., a now defunct penny stock

company he

           and Glenn Schuster controlled.

                The Court also ordered Mersky to pay disgorgement in the

amount of

           $114,782.14, plus prejudgment interest of $127,352.80,

representing his

           gains from the conduct alleged in the complaint. However, all

disgorgement

           and prejudgment interest was waived based on Mersky's

demonstrated

           financial inability to pay.

           LESLIE MERSKY PERMANENTLY ENJOINED

SNIPPETS:

·  UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

·  AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. GLENN A. SCHUSTER, ET AL. Civil Action No. H-92-3598, USDC/SD TX

·  The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on June 26, 1998, a Final Judgment as

·  Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint, Mersky consented

·  The Commission's complaint, filed November 23, 1992, alleged that Mersky, and others,

·  The Court also ordered Mersky to pay disgorgement in the amount of $114,782.14, plus

·  all disgorgement and prejudgment interest was waived based on Mersky's demonstrated financial

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 19782 / July 31, 2006

SEC v. Leslie Mersky, et al., Civil Action No. 93-CV-5200 (E.D. Pa.)

Civil and Administrative Proceedings Resolved as to Leslie Mersky in Connection With a Scheme To Sell Worthless Securities

Mersky to Pay $543,689, Barred from Participating in the Offering of any Penny Stock, and Barred from Association With any Broker or Dealer

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced today that it has resolved certain administrative and district court proceedings with Leslie Mersky ("Mersky"). On July 25, 2006, the Honorable Berle M. Schiller, United States District Court Judge, signed a Final Judgment permanently enjoining Mersky from, among other things, violations of antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws ("Final Judgment"). Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mersky, et al., Civil Action No. 93-5200 (E.D. Pa.). Mersky consented to the Final Judgment without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint, except as to jurisdiction.

In the civil injunctive action filed by the Commission in 1993, the Commission alleges that Mersky was an officer and a principal of Amglo Industries ("Amglo") and its subsidiary, Amglobal Corporation ("Amglobal"), and that he controlled brokerage accounts that actively traded in the securities of both companies. The complaint further alleges that, from 1988 through 1989, Mersky and others participated in a scheme to sell worthless securities of Amglo and Amglobal. According to the complaint, the price of these securities was artificially inflated through manipulative and fraudulent activities of Mersky and others. Among other things, the complaint alleges that Mersky caused Amglo to engage in a series of stock-for-stock exchanges wherein it acquired various shell companies as subsidiaries. Mersky and others falsely portrayed the shell companies as having legitimate business activities and substantial assets, creating the appearance that Amglo was a profitable, growing enterprise when it was not. The complaint alleges that the scheme to defraud collapsed in the summer of 1989, after Mersky and others distributed approximately $3.4 million of worthless securities to unwitting investors through the over-the-counter market. In January 1994, the Commission's civil action was stayed upon the request of the office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Final Judgment, permanently enjoins Mersky from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M of the Exchange Act. He also is barred from participating in the offering of any penny stock. The Final Judgment orders Mersky to pay disgorgement together with prejudgment interest in the amount of $543,689. The Commission did not seek a civil penalty because the alleged wrongdoing preceded the effective date of the Securities Enforcement Remedies and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990. (Pub. L. No. 101-429, 104 Stat. 931 (1990))

The Commission also announced today that it issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions barring Mersky from association with any broker or dealer. This order is based on the permanent injunction contained in the Final Judgment.

The civil action continues with respect to additional defendants.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2006/lr19782.htm

Registered Name
Information Search
Generated by TnT Names Search Version 3.10

Instructions

©Copyright 2000 by Arizona Secretary of State - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Please email your comments or questions regarding this system to trades@azsos.gov. We appreciate any feedback.

Disclaimer

DAVID MERSKY

MEMBER

64 ROUND HILL RD

ROSYLN HEIGHTS,NY  11577

Date of Taking Office: 01/05/2006

Last Updated: 01/18/2006

JANICE MERSKY

MEMBER

14304 E THOROUGHBREAD TRAIL

SCOTTSDALE,AZ  85259

Date of Taking Office: 01/05/2006

Last Updated: 01/18/2006

LESLIE MERSKY

MEMBER

14304 E THOROUGHBREAD TRAIL

SCOTTSDALE,AZ  85259

Date of Taking Office: 01/05/2006

Last Updated: 01/18/2006

Back To Top

Back To Top

Back To Top

·  Corporate Name Search Instructions

·  General Web Site Usage Instructions

·  Return to STARPAS Main Menu

·  Return to A.C.C. Corporations Division Main Page

·  Return to Arizona Corporation Commission Home Page
 

MICHAEL MALKIN
OTHER OFFICER
2701 E OSBORN ROAD
PHOENIX,AZ  85016
Date of Taking Office: 06/01/2007
Last Updated: 03/11/2009

DAVID MERSKY
PRESIDENT/CEO
2701 E OSBORN ROAD
PHOENIX,AZ  85016
Date of Taking Office: 02/25/2006
Last Updated: 03/11/2009

DAVID MERSKY
DIRECTOR
2701 E OSBORN ROAD
PHOENIX,AZ  85016
Date of Taking Office: 02/25/2006
Last Updated: 03/11/2009