==========================================START OF PAGE 1====== UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 36962 /March 13, 1996 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-8781 ------------------------------ : In the Matter of : ORDER MAKING FINDINGS, : IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS, STUART, COLEMAN & CO., INC., : AND CEASE AND DESIST ORDER et al. : AGAINST RESPONDENT PAMELA : WOODS BY DEFAULT ------------------------------- Pamela Woods is in Default under the Commission's Rules of Practice, Rules 155 and 310-[1]-, because she failed to attend a properly noticed hearing on January 23, 1996, which had been ordered pursuant to the Commission's Order Instituting Proceedings (Order Instituting) dated August 14, 1995. I make the following findings of fact that establish that it is reasonable and proper to hold Respondent Woods in default for her failure to appear for the January 23, 1996 hearing in this matter: At the 30 November 1995, 5 January 1996, and 18 January 1996, telephonic prehearing conferences in which Respondent Woods participated, I confirmed that this matter was set for an evidentiary hearing on January 23, 1996. My order issued with respect to a January 16, 1996 telephonic prehearing conference confirmed that this matter was set for an evidentiary hearing on January 23, 1996, and stated that the hearing would be held in the Commission's Miami office. Respondent Woods appeared in the Commission's Miami office on January 22, 1996, the day before the hearing. Respondent Woods failed to appear for the January 23, 1996 evidentiary hearing. The hearing started at 9:30 a.m. and did not conclude until approximately 6:30 p.m. on that day. At the close ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[1]-60 Fed. Reg. 32752, 32810 (to be codified at 17 C.F.R.  201.155 and 310). of its case, the Division of Enforcement (Division) moved for a default order against this respondent. The motion was not ruled on at that time. After the hearing, the Division filed a written motion for default based on Respondent Woods's failure to appear at the hearing. That motion was filed on February 1, 1996. The respondent has not filed any opposition to the post-hearing default motion. An earlier motion for default, based on Respondent Woods's failure to file an answer, had been filed on December 22, 1995. That motion was addressed on January 17, 1996, by the granting of additional time for filing of an answer by Respondent Woods. On February 23, 1996, I issued a show cause order requesting Respondent Woods to show cause as to why she should not be held in default and why the sanctions requested against her by the Division in its written motion for default should not be imposed. The respondent has not filed any response to the show cause order. On March 4, 1996, I received Respondent Woods's 124-page document, including nine exhibits, that is entitled "Respondent Woods and Snyder Motion for Dismissal of Allegations 15a of the 1934 Securities Act." The document does not address the failure to appear raised in my Order to Show Cause. Instead, it addresses the merits of the allegations against Respondent Woods. I find it unnecessary to reach the merits of this case and I thus decline specifically to do so. Therefore, I DENY the respondent's motion for dismissal. Accordingly, I find that the following allegations set out in the Order Instituting are true:-[2]- 1. No application for registration as a broker-dealer on Form BD has been filed or is in effect with the Commission pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act with respect to Woods. 2. During the period from in or about April 1992 to in or about April 1993, Woods was associated as a registered representative with the West Palm Beach, Florida branch office of Stuart, Coleman and Co., Inc. (Stuart Coleman). 3. During the period from in or about September 1992 to in or about December 1992, Woods sold from the Stuart Coleman branch office approximately $47,000 of limited partnership securities through an entity other than Stuart Coleman. ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[2]-The findings herein are binding solely upon Respondent Woods, and not on any other respondent in this proceeding. ==========================================START OF PAGE 2====== 4. During the period from in or about September 1992 to in or about December 1992, in connection with the limited partnership security sales described above, Woods was paid approximately $4,700 in commissions from an entity and person other than Stuart Coleman. 5. During the period from in or about September 1992 to in or about December 1992, Woods willfully violated Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) in that Woods acted and conducted business as a securities broker-dealer and as such made use of the mails or means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce to effect transactions in or to induce the purchase or sale of securities (other than exempted securities or commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, or commercial bills) otherwise than on a national securities exchange without being registered with the Commission in accordance with Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act. As part of the aforesaid conduct, Woods would and did engage in acts and practices described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above. In view of the foregoing, I find it in the public interest to sanction Respondent Woods pursuant to Sections 15(b), 19(h), 21B and 21C of the Exchange Act. I ORDER that: A. Woods cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act; B. Woods be and hereby is barred from association with any broker or dealer, from the date of this order with the right to reapply after three years; C. Woods immediately pay disgorgement of $4,700, plus $1,260.47 prejudgment interest. Interest shall continue to accrue until funds owed are paid, pursuant to Rule 600 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.-[3]- D. Woods immediately pay a civil money penalty of $4,700. All funds due according to this order must be paid, pursuant to Rule 601 of the Commission's Rules of Practice,-[4]- no ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[3]-60 Fed. Reg. 32819 (1995) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R.  201.600). -[4]-60 Fed. Reg. 32819 (1995) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R.  201.601). ==========================================START OF PAGE 3====== later than 21 days after service of this order on Respondent Woods, and shall be: (a) made by United States postal money order, certified check, bank cashier's check or bank money order; (b) made payable to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; (c) hand-delivered to the Comptroller, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549; and (d) submitted under cover letter which identifies Respondent Woods as a respondent in this proceeding, and the file number of this proceeding, a copy of which cover letter shall be served on the undersigned and on the counsel for the Division. Pursuant to Rule 610 of the Commission's Rules of Practice,-[5]- the Division shall submit a proposed plan of disgorgement no later than 60 days after funds or other assets have been turned over by Respondent Woods. __________________________________ Lillian A. McEwen Administrative Law Judge ---------FOOTNOTES---------- -[5]-60 Fed. Reg. 32819 (1995) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R.  201.610). ==========================================START OF PAGE 4======