May 2005, Gordon participated in a scheme at Joseph Stevens & Co. to artificially raise, maintain,
and manipulate the prices of certain stocks and to induce customers to buy and sell those stocks in
order to receive illegally inflated profits which were shared between principals and registered
representatives. The scheme involved the securities of various companies, including Cypress
Bioscience, Inc. and Antigenics, Inc. The grand larceny count to which Gordon pleaded guilty
alleged that between March 2001 and May 2005, Gordon stole more than three thousand dollars
from an individual.
=====================================================================
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 71561 / February 18, 2014
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-15753
In the Matter of
MICHAEL GORDON,
Respondent.
ORDER INSTITUTING
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND NOTICE OF HEARING
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 Michael Gordon
(“Respondent” or “Gordon”).
II.
After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that:
A. RESPONDENT
1. From October 2000 to February 2007, Gordon was a registered
representative associated with Joseph Stevens & Co., Inc., which, at the time of his association, was
a broker-dealer registered with the Commission. Joseph Stevens & Co. ceased to be registered with
the Commission as of August 2008. Gordon, age 40, is a resident of New Jersey.
B. RESPONDENT’S CRIMINAL CONVICTION
1. On April 21, 2009, before the New York Supreme Court in People v.
Michael Gordon, Case No. 1784-2009, Gordon pleaded guilty to one felony count of attempted
enterprise corruption in violation of New York Penal Law § 110-460.20 and one count of grand
larceny in the third degree in violation of New York Penal Law § 155.35. On May 4, 2012, Gordon
2
was sentenced in that proceeding to five years of probation and ordered to pay $46,799 in
restitution.
2. The attempted enterprise corruption count to which Gordon pleaded arose
out of the conduct of a broker-dealer and alleged, among other things, that between March 2001 and
May 2005, Gordon participated in a scheme at Joseph Stevens & Co. to artificially raise, maintain,
and manipulate the prices of certain stocks and to induce customers to buy and sell those stocks in
order to receive illegally inflated profits which were shared between principals and registered
representatives. The scheme involved the securities of various companies, including Cypress
Bioscience, Inc. and Antigenics, Inc. The grand larceny count to which Gordon pleaded guilty
alleged that between March 2001 and May 2005, Gordon stole more than three thousand dollars
from an individual.
III.
In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commission deems it
necessary and appropriate in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be instituted
to determine:
A. Whether the allegations set forth in Section II hereof are true and, in connection
therewith, to afford Respondent an opportunity to establish any defenses to such allegations; and
B. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against
Respondent pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange Act.
IV.
IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on the questions
set forth in Section III hereof shall be convened at a time and place to be fixed, and before an
Administrative Law Judge to be designated by further order as provided by Rule 110 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.110.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an Answer to the allegations
contained in this Order within twenty (20) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule 220
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220.
If Respondent fails to file the directed answer, or fails to appear at a hearing after being
duly notified, the Respondent may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be determined
against him upon consideration of this Order, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true as
provided by Rules 155(a), 220(f), 221(f), and 310 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice,
17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155(a), 201.220(f), 201.221(f), and 201.310.
This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondent personally or by certified mail.
3 |
