Initial Decision Release No. 1342

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-18500

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

In the Matter of

Solo International, Inc.,

Urban Hydroponics, Inc., and

Your Event, Inc.

Initial Decision on Default

December 21, 2018

Appearances: Stephan Schlegelmilch and David S. Frye

for the Division of Enforcement,

Securities and Exchange Commission

Before: Brenda P. Murray, Chief Administrative Law Judge

On May 23, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an 

order instituting proceedings (OIP) pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that Solo International, Inc., and Your Event, 

Inc. (Respondents), have securities registered with the Commission under

Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act and are delinquent in their periodic 

filings.

1

A different administrative law judge was originally assigned to this 

proceeding. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. 

Ct. 2044 (2018), the matter was reassigned to me to provide Respondents 

with the opportunity for a new hearing. Pending Admin. Proc., Admin. Proc. 

Rulings Release No. 5955, 2018 SEC LEXIS 2264, at *2, *4 (ALJ Sept. 12, 

2018); see Pending Admin. Proc., Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 10536, 

2018 SEC LEXIS 2058, at *2-3 (Aug. 22, 2018). Respondents were directed to 

 

1 Urban Hydroponics, Inc., settled with the Commission and is no longer 

part of this proceeding. Solo Int’l, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 83420, 

2018 SEC LEXIS 1380 (June 12, 2018). 
2

submit proposals for the conduct of further proceedings. Solo Int’l, Inc.,

Admin. Proc. Rulings Release No. 6087, 2018 SEC LEXIS 2599, at *1 (ALJ 

Sept. 26, 2018). Neither did. I have therefore proceeded under the 

Commission’s instruction to not give weight to or otherwise presume the 

correctness of any prior opinions, orders, or rulings issued by the prior 

administrative law judge. Pending Admin. Proc., 2018 SEC LEXIS 2058, at 

*4.

Previously, I independently reviewed the evidence submitted by the 

Division and determined that Respondents were served with the OIP. Solo 

Int’l, Inc., Admin. Proc. Rulings Release No. 6288, 2018 SEC LEXIS 3064, at 

*2 (ALJ Nov. 2, 2018). Your Event’s answer was due by June 8, 2018. Id. 

Solo International’s answer was due by November 13, 2018. Id. at *2-3. 

Neither Respondent filed an answer. I ordered Respondents to show cause by 

December 17, 2018, why this proceeding should not be determined on default.

Solo Int’l, Inc., Admin. Proc. Rulings Release No. 6390, 2018 SEC LEXIS 

3432, at *2 (ALJ Dec. 7, 2018).

To date, no Respondent has filed an answer, submitted a proposal for the 

conduct of further proceedings, or responded to the show cause order. 

Respondents are therefore in default for failing to file answers, file 

proposals for the conduct of further proceedings, or otherwise defend the 

proceeding. OIP at 3; 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155(a)(2), .220(f); Pending Admin. 

Proc., 2018 SEC LEXIS 2058, at *4. Accordingly, I deem the allegations in 

the OIP to be true as to Respondents. 17 C.F.R. § 201.155(a). 

Findings of Fact

Solo International, Central Index Key (CIK) No. 1501845 and ticker 

symbol SLIO, is a defaulted Nevada corporation located in Henderson, 

Nevada, with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant 

to Exchange Act Section 12(g). The company is delinquent in its periodic

filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it 

filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2015, which reported a net 

loss of $513,598 for the prior nine months. As of May 21, 2018, the company’s 

common stock was quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group 

Inc., had five market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception 

of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3). 

Your Event, CIK No. 1424100 and ticker symbol YEVN, is a revoked 

Nevada corporation located in Hermosa Beach, California, with a class of 

securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 

12(g). The company is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, 
3

having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period 

ended May 31, 2015, which reported a net loss of $1,035,602 for the prior nine 

months. As of May 21, 2018, the company’s common stock was quoted on 

OTC Link, had four market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” 

exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3). 

In addition to their repeated failures to file timely periodic reports, 

Respondents failed to heed the delinquency letters, sent to them by the 

Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance, requesting compliance with 

their periodic filing obligations or, through their failures to maintain valid 

addresses on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules, did 

not receive such letters. 

Conclusions of Law

Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 require issuers 

of securities registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act 

Section 12 to file with the Commission current and accurate information in 

annual and quarterly reports, even if the registration is voluntary under 

Exchange Act Section 12(g). 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.13a-1, .13a-13. Compliance 

with these reporting requirements is mandatory. America’s Sports Voice, 

Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 55511, 2007 SEC LEXIS 1241, at *12 (Mar. 

22, 2007), recons. denied, Exchange Act Release No. 55867, 2007 SEC LEXIS 

1239 (June 6, 2007). Scienter is not required to establish violations of 

Exchange Act Section 13(a) and rules thereunder. SEC v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 

732, 740-41 (2d Cir. 1998). By failing to timely file required annual and 

quarterly reports, Respondents violated Exchange Act Section 13(a) and 

Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13.

Sanction

Under Exchange Act Section 12(j), the Commission is authorized, “as it 

deems necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors,” to revoke the 

registration of a security or suspend the registration for a period not 

exceeding twelve months if it finds, after notice and an opportunity for 

hearing, that the issuer of the security has failed to comply with any 

provision of the Exchange Act or rules thereunder. 15 U.S.C. § 78l(j). In 

determining what sanctions will adequately protect investors, the 

Commission “consider[s], among other things, the seriousness of the issuer’s 

violations, the isolated or recurrent nature of the violations, the degree of 

culpability involved, the extent of the issuer’s efforts to remedy its past 

violations and ensure future compliance, and the credibility of its assurances, 

if any, against further violations.” Gateway Int’l Holdings, Inc., Exchange 

Act Release No. 53907, 2006 SEC LEXIS 1288, at *19-20 (May 31, 2006). 
4

Respondents’ failures to file required periodic reports are serious because 

they violate a central provision of the Exchange Act. The purpose of periodic 

reporting is “to supply investors with current and accurate financial 

information about an issuer so that they may make sound [investment] 

decisions.” Id. at *26. The reporting requirements are the primary tool that 

Congress “fashioned for the protection of investors from negligent, careless, 

and deliberate misrepresentations” in the sale of securities. Eagletech 

Commc’ns, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 54095, 2006 SEC LEXIS 1534, at 

*12 (July 5, 2006) (quoting SEC v. Beisinger Indus. Corp., 552 F.2d 15, 18 

(1st Cir. 1977)). The violations are recurrent. Neither Respondent has filed 

a periodic report since 2015. See Nature’s Sunshine Prods., Inc., Exchange 

Act Release No. 59268, 2009 SEC LEXIS 81, at *20 (Jan. 21, 2009); Impax 

Labs., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 57864, 2008 SEC LEXIS 1197, at *25-

26 (May 23, 2008). Respondents are culpable because they knew, or should 

have known, of their obligation to file periodic reports. See China-Biotics, 

Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 70800, 2013 SEC LEXIS 3451, at *37 & n.60 

(Nov. 4, 2013) (holding that scienter is not necessary to establish grounds for 

revocation); Robert L. Burns, Investment Advisers Act of 1940 Release 

No. 3260, 2011 SEC LEXIS 2722, at *41 n.60 (Aug. 5, 2011) (stating that the 

Commission has “repeatedly held that ignorance of the securities laws is not 

a defense to liability thereunder”). By not participating in this proceeding, 

Respondents forfeited an opportunity to show they made efforts to remedy 

their past violations or to offer any assurances against further violations.

On these facts, it is necessary and appropriate for the protection of 

investors to revoke the registrations of each class of Respondents’ registered 

securities. 

Order

I ORDER that, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934, the registrations of each class of registered securities of Solo 

International, Inc., and Your Event, Inc., are REVOKED.2

This initial decision shall become effective in accordance with and 

subject to the provisions of Rule of Practice 360. 17 C.F.R. § 201.360. 

Pursuant to that Rule, I FURTHER ORDER that, a party may file a petition 

for review of this initial decision within twenty-one days after service of the 

 

2 This order applies to all classes of Respondents’ securities registered 

under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, whether or not such securities are 

specifically identified by ticker symbol or otherwise in this initial decision.
5

initial decision. 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(b). A party may also file a motion to 

correct a manifest error of fact within ten days of the initial decision, 

pursuant to Rule of Practice 111. 17 C.F.R. § 201.111. If a motion to correct 

a manifest error of fact is filed by a party, then a party shall have twenty-one 

days to file a petition for review from the date of the order resolving such 

motion to correct a manifest error of fact. This initial decision will not 

become final until the Commission enters an order of finality. The 

Commission will enter an order of finality unless a party files a petition for 

review or motion to correct a manifest error of fact or the Commission 

determines on its own initiative to review the initial decision as to a party. If 

any of these events occur, the initial decision shall not become final as to that 

party. 

A respondent has the right to file a motion to set aside a default within a 

reasonable time, stating the reasons for the failure to appear or defend and

specifying the nature of the proposed defense. 17 C.F.R. § 201.155(b). The 

Commission can set aside a default at any time for good cause. Id. 

_______________________________

Brenda P. Murray

Chief Administrative Law Judge