This case was last updated from PACER on 09/24/2021 at 05:58:26 (UTC).

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cattlin et al

Case Summary

On September 23, 2021, Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Nita Klunder, attorney at SEC’s Boston regional office, filed a civil enforcement action against Daniel Cattlin (“Cattlin”) and William R. Shupe (“Shupe”) (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest and other relief for fraudulently acquiring and selling the stock of various publicly traded companies. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York with Judges Allyne R. Ross and James R. Cho presiding.

 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “Starting at least by the middle of 2016 and continuing through at least November 2019, Shupe and others schemed fraudulently to sell the stock of EnviroTechnologies International, Inc. (“EnviroTech”), BioHemp International, Inc. (“BioHemp”) and Cyberfort Software Inc. (“Cyberfort”), to investors in the public United States securities markets. Cattlin was involved in the schemes relating to BioHemp and Cyberfort and his involvement lasted from no later than 2017 through at least July 2020.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “To help the Pages conceal their illegal securities trading, Shupe maintained bank accounts in the names of three corporate entities that he controlled. Shupe permitted the Pages to send funds into those accounts and then direct the distribution of funds out of these accounts. By allowing the Pages to use his companies’ accounts in this way, Shupe helped the Pages conceal their use of the proceeds from their fraudulent scheme.”

 

Further, Plaintiff alleged that, “For his efforts, the Pages paid Cattlin a total of over one hundred thousand dollars on various dates during 2017 through 2020, some of which was derived from the Pages’ illegal sale of stock.”

 

Plaintiff then alleged that “As a result of the conduct alleged herein, Cattlin and Shupe violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Sections 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §77q(1), (3)], and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5(a), (c)]. Cattlin and Shupe also aided and abetted, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to aid and abet, the Pages’ violations of Sections 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder.”

 

There are two claims for relief laid down by Plaintiff. The first claim is for alleged fraud in the offer or sale of securities. The second claim is for alleged fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and the third claim is for alleged aiding and abetting.

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff has requested the court to pass an order for an award of permanent injunctive relief along with an order of disgorgement against Cattlin and Shupe with prejudgment interest, and all ill-gotten gains and civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(3)]. Further, Plaintiff requested the court for an order barring Cattlin and Shupe from participating in any offering of a penny stock, pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §77t(g)] and/or 21(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78u(d)] and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:21-CV-05294

  • Filing Date:

    09/23/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Finance - Security/Commodity/Exchange

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Allyne R. Ross

Referral Judge

James R. Cho

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Securities & Exchange Commission

Defendants

Daniel Cattlin

William R. Shupe

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Nita Klunder

Attorney at Securities and Exchange Commission

33 Arch Street

Boston, MA 02110

 

Court Documents

#3

(#3) This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/23/2021)

#2

(#2) In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/23/2021)

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #1

Main Document

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/23/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/23/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/23/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2021
  • DocketCase Assigned to Judge Allyne R. Ross and Magistrate Judge James R. Cho. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/23/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -YES,, filed by Securities & Exchange Commission. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Klunder, Nita) (Entered: 09/23/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less