UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 79169 / October 27, 2016

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

Release No. 4560 / October 27, 2016

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-17645

In the Matter of

GARY C. SNISKY, 

Respondent.

ORDER INSTITUTING 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

AND SECTION 203(f) OF THE 

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

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”) and Section 203(f) of the 

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Gary C. Snisky (“Respondent”). 

II.

After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that:

1. Snisky was an owner and the sole managing member of Arete, Ltd., a/k/a/ Sky Peak 

Capital (“Arete”), a Cheyenne, Wyoming based investment adviser registered with the Commission 

and the sole managing member of a number of pooled investment vehicles used by Arete. 

2. On August 12, 2016, a final judgment was entered against Snisky, permanently 

enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 

1933 (“Securities Act”), Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

thereunder, Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Advisers Act, Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, 

and Section 7(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, in the civil action entitled Securities 

and Exchange Commission v. Gary C. Snisky, Case Number 13-CV-3149, in the United States 

District Court for the District of Colorado. 
2

3. The Commission’s complaint alleged that, primarily targeting elderly annuity 

holders, Snisky using his Longmont, Colorado-based investment entity, Arete, LLC, conducted an 

offering fraud scheme that fraudulently raised at least $3.8 million from more than 40 investors in 

Colorado and seven other states from August 2011 through January 2013. The Commission’s 

complaint further alleged that, in connection with this fraudulent scheme, Snisky made 

misrepresentations to investors and misappropriated approximately $2.8 million of investor funds.

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; 

B. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against Respondent 

pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act; 

C. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against Respondent 

pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Advisers Act; and

D. Whether, pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, it is appropriate and in 

the public interest to bar Respondent from participating in any offering of penny stock, 

including: acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent or other person who engages in 

activities with a broker, dealer or issuer for purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny 

stock; or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock.

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.
3

This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondent as provided for in the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(a)(2), the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial decision 

no later than 75 days from the occurrence of one of the following events: (A) The completion of 

post-hearing briefing in a proceeding where the hearing has been completed; (B) Where the 

hearing officer has determined that no hearing is necessary, upon completion of briefing on a 

motion pursuant to Rule 250 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.250; or (C) 

The determination by the hearing officer that a party is deemed to be in default under Rule 155 of 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.155 and no hearing is necessary. 

In the absence of an appropriate waiver, no officer or employee of the Commission engaged 

in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in this or any factually related 

proceeding will be permitted to participate or advise in the decision of this matter, except as witness 

or counsel in proceedings held pursuant to notice. Since this proceeding is not “rule making” within 

the meaning of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not deemed subject to the 

provisions of Section 553 delaying the effective date of any final Commission action.

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

Brent J. Fields

Secretary