1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MICHAEL J. ROESSNER, DC SBN 501875

Email: Roessnerm@sec.gov

Attorney for Plaintiff

Assistant Chief Litigation Counsel

Division of Enforcement

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F. Street NE, Mail Stop 5631

Washington, D.C. 20549

Telephone: (202) 551-4347

Facsimile: (703) 813-9366

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Petitioner,

 v.

LAWRENCE M. LABINE,

Respondent.

Case No.:

APPLICATION OF THE SECURITIES 

AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FOR AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 

20(C) OF THE SECURITIES ACT, 

SECTION 21(E) OF THE EXCHANGE 

ACT, SECTION 209(D) OF THE 

ADVISERS ACT AND SECTION 42(D) 

OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY 

ACT ENFORCING COMPLIANCE 

WITH COMMISSION ORDER

The Petitioner, Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), applies to the 

Court for an order pursuant to Section 20(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 77t(c), Section 21(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 78u(e)(1), Section 209(d) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 80b-9(d), and Section 42(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment 

Company Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-41(d), to enforce compliance by the Respondent, Lawrence M. 

LaBine (“LaBine”), with a final Commission order entered against him on April 22, 2016. This 

order required LaBine to disgorge $100,000 plus prejudgment interest and injunctive relief.

In support of its Application, the Commission states as follows:

Case 2:18-mc-00007-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTRODUCTION

1. The Commission seeks by this Application to enforce an order of the 

Commission, which found that LaBine violated Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act 

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Advisers Act Section 206(1) and (2).

2. Respondent has failed, refused and neglected to comply with the Commission 

Order in that he has not paid any portion of the disgorgement and prejudgment interest imposed 

upon him.

PARTIES

3. The Commission is an agency of the United States Government. The 

Commission’s principal office is located at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20549. 

4. LaBine, age 55, is a resident of Fountain Hills, Arizona. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction under Sections 20(c) and 22(a) of the Securities Act, 

and Sections 21(e)(1) and 27(a) of the Exchange Act, Section 209(d) of the Advisers Act, and 

Section 42(d) of the Investment Company Act.

6. Venue lies in the District of Arizona under Section 22(a) of the Securities Act, 

Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act, Section 44 of the Investment Company Act, Section 214(a) 

of the Advisers Act. Respondent is “found” or is an “inhabitant” of this District.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

7. The Commission Order found, in summary, that Lawrence M. LaBine 

recommended and sold investments in debt securities called Series D debentures issued by 

Domin-8 Enterprise Solutions, Inc., a startup software company. The vast majority of LaBine’s 

clients who purchased these debentures were his advisory clients. The Commission alleged that 

LaBine violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws because he: 1) did not 

Case 2:18-mc-00007-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

disclose potential incentive compensation for the sales; 2) did not disclose his fundraising role 

and commitments to Domin-8 to sell the debentures; and 3) made material misrepresentations 

about the investment’s risks. 

8. After an administrative proceeding, an initial decision was issued on March 2, 

2016, in which the administrative law judge found that evidence supported the Commission’s 

allegations and ordered: a cease-and-desist order; a two-year investment company bar; a bar 

from association with any investment adviser, broker, or dealer, with a right to reapply for 

association in two years; and disgorgement of $100,000 plus prejudgment interest. 

9. LaBine did not petition for review of the initial decision. On April 22, 2016, the 

Commission issued an Order giving notice that the initial decision of the administrative law 

judge had become the final decision of the Commission with respect to LaBine. 

10. LaBine did not seek review of the Order, and his time to do so has expired.

11. LaBine has not made any payment towards the disgorgement obligation, which 

remains due and owning with additional interest continuing to accrue pursuant to Rule 600 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice.

ARGUMENT

12. The Commission brings this proceeding under Section 20(c) of the Securities Act, 

Section 21(e) of the Exchange Act, Section 209(d) of the Advisers Act, and Section 42(d) of the 

Investment Company Act. These provisions authorize the use of summary proceedings, rather 

than plenary civil actions, to enforce Commission orders in the district courts.

13. Proceedings under these provisions are summary in nature. SEC v. Vindman, 

2007 WL 1074941 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. April 5, 2007); SEC v. McCarthy, 322 F.3d 650, 659 (9th

Cir. 2003). In McCarthy, the Ninth Circuit held that “summary proceedings may be ‘conducted 

Case 2:18-mc-00007-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

without formal pleadings, on short notice, without summons and complaints, generally on 

affidavits, and sometimes even ex parte.’”

14. These proceedings are commenced by service of an order to show cause and the 

application, rather than by service of a summons and a complaint. SEC v. Stoecklein, 2015 WL 

6455602 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2015); SEC v. Taber, 2013 WL 6334375 at *1 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 

4, 2013); SEC v. Markowski, 2007 WL 2566247 at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2007).

15. This proceeding, therefore, is properly commenced by service of the moving 

papers and an order to show cause. 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests:

I.

That the Court enter an Order to Show Cause, directing Respondent to show cause why 

this Court should not enter an Order enforcing compliance with the Commission Order.

II.

That the Court thereafter enter an Order enforcing the Commission Order and requiring:

LaBine to disgorge $100,000 plus prejudgment interest, pursuant to Rule 600 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice, to the United States Securities and Exchange 

Commission, and injunctive relief.

III.

That the Court order such relief as may be necessary for enforcement of any order of this 

Court as to disgorgement and prejudgment interest through civil contempt and/or other collection 

procedures authorized by law.

IV.

That the Court retain jurisdiction as appropriate to assure and effect compliance with the 

orders entered herein.

Case 2:18-mc-00007-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V.

That the Court order such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Dated: February 1, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

s/MICHAEL J. ROESSNER

MICHAEL J. ROESSNER 

Assistant Chief Litigation Counsel

Division of Enforcement

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Mail Stop 5631

Washington, DC 20549-0022

RoessnerM@SEC.gov 

Telephone: 202.551.4347

Facsimile: 703.813.9366

Attorney for Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Case 2:18-mc-00007-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 5 of 5