sec put this out and bigwilly see it and think no bigwilly going to prepare for thanksgiving turkey and ham both this year
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 87566 / November 18, 2019
Admin. Proc. File No. 3-19286
In the Matter of
HYBRID COATING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTS CORP., AND
ORO EAST MINING, INC.,
Respondents.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO HYBRID COATING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTS CORP.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) issued an Order Instituting
Proceedings (“OIP”) on July 29, 2019, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, against respondents Hybrid Coating Technologies, Inc., and Infrastructure
Developments Corp. (collectively, “Respondents”).
1
On August 8, 2019, the Division of Enforcement filed the Declaration of David S. Frye,
which stated that, pursuant to Rule 141(a)(2)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice,2
service
of the OIP was made on Hybrid Coating Technologies, Inc., on July 31, 2019; and service of the
OIP was made on Infrastructure Developments Corp. on July 31, 2019.
As stated in the OIP, Respondents’ answers were required to be filed within ten days of
service of the OIP.3
As of the date of this order, Respondents have not filed answers. The
prehearing conference and the hearing are thus continued indefinitely.
1 Hybrid Coating Techs., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 86503, 2019 WL 3425120 (July
29, 2019). The OIP also instituted proceedings against Oro East Mining, Inc. The Commission
subsequently revoked the registration of the securities of Oro East Mining, Inc., pursuant to a
settlement. Hybrid Coating Techs., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 86716, 2019 WL 3947984
(Aug. 20, 2019).
2
17 C.F.R. § 201.141(a)(2)(ii).
3 Rules of Practice 151(a), 160(b), 220(b), 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.151(a), .160(b), .220(b).
2
Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by December 2, 2019, why
the registrations of their securities should not be revoked by default due to their failures to file an
answer and to otherwise defend this proceeding. When a party defaults, the allegations in the
OIP will be deemed to be true and the Commission may determine the proceeding against that
party upon consideration of the record without holding a public hearing.
If Respondents fail to respond to this order to show cause, they may be deemed in
default, the proceeding may be determined against them, and the registrations of their securities
may be revoked.4
Upon review of the filings in response to this order, the Commission will
either direct further proceedings by subsequent order or issue a final order resolving the matter.
For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated
authority.
Vanessa A. Countryman
Secretary
4 Rules of Practice 155, 180, 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155, .180; see Hybrid Coating Techs., 2019
WL 3425120, at *3 (“If Respondents fail to file the directed Answers, . . . [they] may be deemed
in default and the proceedings may be determined against them . . . .”).
Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by December 2, 2019, why
the registrations of their securities should not be revoked by default due to their failures to file an
answer and to otherwise defend this proceeding. When a party defaults, the allegations in the
OIP will be deemed to be true and the Commission may determine the proceeding against that
party upon consideration of the record without holding a public hearing.
If Respondents fail to respond to this order to show cause, they may be deemed in
default, the proceeding may be determined against them, and the registrations of their securities
may be revoked.4
Upon review of the filings in response to this order, the Commission will
either direct further proceedings by subsequent order or issue a final order resolving the matter.
For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated
authority.
Vanessa A. Countryman
Secretary
