Initial Decision Release No. 1323

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-18217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

In the Matter of

Infinity Real Estate Holdings 

Corporation,

International Industrial 

Enterprise, Inc.,

Scor International Foods, Inc., 

and

Xhibit Corp.

Initial Decision of Default

November 30, 2018

Appearances: James Carlson, Stephan Schlegelmilch, and 

David S. Frye for the Division of Enforcement,

Securities and Exchange Commission

Before: James E. Grimes, Administrative Law Judge

Summary

This initial decision revokes the registrations of the registered securities 

of Infinity Real Estate Holdings Corporation, International Industrial 

Enterprise, Inc., Scor International Foods, Inc., and Xhibit Corp. The 

revocation is based on Respondents’ failure to timely file required periodic 

reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Introduction

On September 26, 2017, the Commission initiated this proceeding under 

Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with an order instituting 

proceedings (OIP). The OIP alleges that Respondents have securities 

registered with the Commission under Exchange Act Section 12(g) and have
2

repeatedly failed to file timely periodic reports with the Commission, in 

violation of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 

thereunder. 

A different administrative law judge originally presided over this 

proceeding and issued an initial decision of default against Respondents.1 But 

the Commission vacated that decision following the Supreme Court’s decision 

in Lucia v. SEC,

2 and the matter was reassigned to me to provide 

Respondents with the opportunity for a new hearing.3 Respondents were 

directed to propose how further proceedings should be conducted.4 But none

did. I 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.5

After independently reviewing evidence submitted by the Division, I 

determined that Respondents were served with the OIP by October 5, 2017, 

and their answers were due by October 18, 2017.

6 On October 23, 2018, I 

noted that Respondents had not filed answers and ordered them to show 

cause by November 2, 2018, why the registrations of their securities should 

not be revoked by default due to their failure to file answers or otherwise 

defend the proceeding.7 To date, Respondents have not filed answers, 

submitted proposals, or responded to the show cause order.

 

1 See Infinity Real Estate Holdings Corp., Initial Decision Release 

No. 1214, 2017 SEC LEXIS 3454 (ALJ Oct. 31, 2017).

2 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018); see Pending Admin. Proc., Securities Act of 1933 

Release No. 10536, 2018 SEC LEXIS 2058, at *2–3 (Aug. 22, 2018).

3 Pending Admin. Proc., Admin. Proc. Rulings Release No. 5955, 2018 SEC 

LEXIS 2264, at *2–3 (ALJ Sept. 12, 2018).

4 Infinity Real Estate Holdings Corp., Admin. Proc. Rulings Release 

No. 6030, 2018 SEC LEXIS 2456, at *1 (ALJ Sept. 19, 2018).

5 Pending Admin. Proc., 2018 SEC LEXIS 2058, at *4.

6 Infinity Real Estate Holdings Corp., Admin. Proc. Rulings Release 

No. 6244, 2018 SEC LEXIS 2942, at *2 (ALJ Oct. 23, 2018).

7 Id.
3

Findings of Fact

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

how further proceedings should be conducted, or otherwise defend the 

proceeding.8 Accordingly, as authorized by Rule of Practice 155(a),9 I find the 

following allegations in the OIP to be true.

Infinity Real Estate Holdings Corporation, Central Index Key (CIK) No. 

1534628, is a void Delaware corporation located in San Mateo, 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, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a 

Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2014, which reported a net loss of 

$1,260 for the prior six months. As of September 5, 2017, the company’s 

common stock was not publicly quoted or traded.

International Industrial Enterprise, Inc., CIK No. 1409986, is a revoked 

Nevada corporation located in Las Vegas, 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 

September 30, 2015, which reported a net loss of $8,468 for the prior nine 

months. As of September 5, 2017, the company’s common stock was not 

publicly quoted or traded.

Scor International Foods, Inc., CIK No. 1635607, is a forfeited Delaware 

corporation located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 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 

September 30, 2015, which reported a net loss of $11,047 for the prior nine

months. As of September 5, 2017, the company’s common stock was not 

publicly quoted or traded.

Xhibit Corp., CIK No. 1393631, is a dissolved Nevada corporation located 

in Phoenix, Arizona, 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 

 

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

2018 SEC LEXIS 2058, at *4.

9 17 C.F.R. § 201.155(a).
4

since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2014, which 

reported an operating loss of $25,216,668 for the prior nine months. On 

January 22, 2015, the company filed a Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona, which was still pending as of 

July 12, 2017. As of September 5, 2017, the company’s common stock was not 

publicly quoted or traded.

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

Respondents failed to heed delinquency letters sent to them by the 

Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance requesting compliance with 

their periodic filing obligations or, through their failure to maintain a valid 

address 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 public 

corporations to file annual and quarterly reports with the Commission. 

Compliance with these reporting requirements is mandatory.10 Scienter is not 

required to establish violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a1 and 13a-13.11 Respondents failed to file timely periodic reports. As a result, 

Respondents failed to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a1 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. In determining what 

sanctions will ensure that investors are adequately protected, 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 

 

10 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).

11 See SEC v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 740–41 (2d Cir. 1998); SEC v. Wills, 

472 F. Supp. 1250, 1268 (D.D.C. 1978).
5

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

if any, against further violations.”12

Respondents’ failures to file required periodic reports are serious because 

they constitute violations of 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.”13 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.14

Respondents’ violations are also recurrent in that they repeatedly failed to 

file periodic reports for three years.

15 Respondents are culpable because they

knew or should have known about the reporting requirements. They further 

failed to heed delinquency letters sent to them by the Division of Corporation 

Finance. Even if Respondents did not receive such letters due to their failure 

to maintain a valid address on file with the Commission as required by 

Commission rules, the other factors weigh in favor of revocation, and scienter 

is not necessary to establish grounds for revocation.16 In any event, there is 

no indication that Respondents’ violations were inadvertent or accidental.17

And there is no evidence that Respondents have made any effort to remedy 

their past violations or ensure future compliance. Respondents have not 

answered the OIP or responded to the show cause order, have not submitted 

 

12 Gateway Int’l Holdings, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 53907, 2006 SEC 

LEXIS 1288, at *19–20 (May 31, 2006).

13 Id. at *26.

14 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)).

15 See Nature’s Sunshine Prods., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 59268, 

2009 SEC LEXIS 81, at *20 (Jan. 21, 2009) (respondent failed to file seven 

required periodic reports due over a two-year period); Impax Labs., Inc., 

Exchange Act Release No. 57864, 2008 SEC LEXIS 1197, at *25–26 (May 23, 

2008) (respondent’s failure to make eight filings over an eighteen-month 

period considered recurrent).

16 See China-Biotics, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 70800, 2013 SEC 

LEXIS 3451, at *37 & n.60 (Nov. 4, 2013).

17 Id. at *37 n.60.
6

proposals regarding the conduct of this proceeding following its 

reassignment, and have not otherwise participated in this proceeding. 

For the reasons described above, it is necessary and appropriate for the 

protection of investors to revoke the registration of each class of Respondents’

registered securities. 

Order

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

1934, the registration of each class of registered securities of Infinity Real 

Estate Holdings Corporation, International Industrial Enterprise, Inc., Scor 

International Foods, Inc., and Xhibit Corp. is hereby REVOKED.18

This initial decision shall become effective in accordance with and 

subject to the provisions of Rule 360.

19 Under this rule, a party may file a 

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

of the initial decision. A party may also file a motion to correct a manifest 

error of fact within ten days of the initial decision, under Rule 111.20 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 

undersigned’s 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.21 The Commission will enter an order of finality unless a 

party files a petition for review or a 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 may move to set aside a default. Rule 155(b) permits the 

Commission, at any time, to set aside a default for good cause, in order to 

prevent injustice and on such conditions as may be appropriate.22 A motion to 

 

18 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.

19 17 C.F.R. § 201.360.

20 17 C.F.R. § 201.111(h).

21 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(d).

22 17 C.F.R. § 201.155(b).
7

set aside a default shall be made within a reasonable time, state the reasons 

for the failure to appear or defend, and specify the nature of the proposed 

defense in the proceeding.

_______________________________

James E. Grimes

Administrative Law Judge