FINRA has this neat function on their web site called “Broker Check“. (http://brokercheck.finra.org/). When you enter Steven M. Samblis, you get a report on his history. It’s an interesting read. Granted, there are some items in the report that have been previously reported, and discussed, however there are a few things that apparently haven’t.
Here is the report: Samblis_FINRABrokerCheck
What perhaps was not know previously was that there were TWO “Regulatory Events”. One on or about 2/10/2000, in which it appears Mr. Samblis Stipulated and Consented, to the Sanctions of “AGREES NOT TO ENGAGE IN THE OFFER OR SALE OF ANY SECURITY FROM OFFICES IN THE STE OF FLORIDA OR TO INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN FLORIDA FOR 10 YEARS“. WOW… 10-years… that seems like a degree of sanction associated with a serious offense. And… Mr. Samblis agreed to it.
The second one has been previously reported, mentioned, and discussed, however, what was interesting is, it appears Mr. Samblis never paid the fine because the fine was discharged in his bankruptcy filing April 1991. So it appears Mr. Samblis never actually paid the fine. That Regulatory Event also apparently blew back on his boss, Donald G. Asquith. OPPS ! Mr. Asquith is listed in the document as Mr. Samblis’s supervisor. WOW… its one thing to screw up, but to have it blow back on your boss is not good for the performance review. The text goes on to indicate that the decision against Mr. Samblis was appealed, but the decision was affirmed – i.e. he/they lost the appeal.
Now, in the section that appears to allow for a statement by the accused, Mr. Samblis states he sued one of the witnesses in Civil court and won a judgment of $215,000 dollars. However there is no indication that money was received by Mr. Samblis. Wouldn’t that be ironic if the witness discharged HER judgement in a bankruptcy.
Also, the Regulatory Statement makes note of THREE customers involved in the Event. No mention as to why Mr. Samblis chose to only go after one of them. The text includes an explanation of the violation, indicating Mr. Samblis mailed an “incomplete and misleading” investment strategy to those customers. Many might say that Mr. Samblis engages in that practice to this date, by providing press releases that are apparently designed at enticing investors into buying IMTV stock.
Well folks, there you have it. Read it, and decide for yourself if these Regulatory Events are old news and have no bearing on Mr. Samblis’s activities today, or, are simply reinforcement to support activities such as press releases that never seem to materialize into into anything more than paper and ink, and, what many believe is the use of bogus aliases on message boards to mislead potential investors into buying IMTV stock.