1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 83130 / April 30, 2018

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-18460

In the Matter of

DAVID ALCORN, 

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 David Alcorn

(“Respondent”). 

II.

After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that:

1. Respondent, age 73, is a resident of Scottsdale, Arizona. Respondent is the 

founder and managing director of Janus Spectrum LLC (“Janus Spectrum”). Respondent is also 

the president of David Alcorn Professional Corporation, which became the sole owner of Janus 

Spectrum as of January 2014. Prior to January 2014, David Alcorn Professional Corporation held a 

55% ownership interest in Janus Spectrum, with the remaining 45% interest held by Kent Maerki 

(“Maerki”). 

2. On February 9, 2018, a final judgment was entered against Respondent, 

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

1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in the civil 

action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Janus Spectrum, LLC, et al., Civil Action 

Number 2:15-cv-00609-SMM, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 

3. The Commission’s complaint alleged that from May 2012 through 

October 2014 Respondent engaged in securities fraud, acted as an unregistered broker or dealer, 

and offered and sold securities in unregistered transactions, in connection with a $12.5 million 

securities offering fraud orchestrated by Respondent and Maerki, through Janus Spectrum. The 

complaint alleged that Janus Spectrum held itself out as a company that prepares applications for 

Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) cellular spectrum licenses on behalf of third 
2

party clients, which included various fundraising entities owned and managed by codefendants 

Daryl Bank, Bobby Jones, Terry Johnson and Raymon Chadwick, who offered and sold 

securities purporting to raise funds to apply for FCC licenses through Janus Spectrum. The 

complaint alleged that Respondent and Maerki organized and controlled those securities 

offerings. The complaint further alleged that, in connection with these offerings, Respondent 

and his codefendants misled investors by falsely representing that their investments would yield 

“double-digit” returns through the sale and lease of the FCC licenses to major wireless carriers, 

when Respondent and his codefendants knew, or were reckless or negligent in not knowing, that 

the FCC licenses, if obtained, were in a narrow band of spectrum that could not be sold or leased 

to any major wireless carriers, thereby greatly diminishing their value. The complaint further 

alleged that Respondent and his codefendants concealed the actual costs associated with 

obtaining the FCC licenses, and misappropriated investor funds to their own, undisclosed uses. 

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; and

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

the public interest to suspend or 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