SK3 Group Inc. (SKTO)

[stoploss73]

2009
Robert Hipple, a lawyer and the former CEO and CFO of now-defunct business development company (“BDC”)2 iWorld Projects & Systems, Inc. (“iWorld”), overstated the value of iWorld’s primary asset – its investment in several portfolio companies – in three consecutive quarterly filings in 2005. Hipple, who personally performed iWorld’s accounting and financial reporting functions, also misled iWorld’s auditors into believing that the company had independently evaluated the worth of its portfolio companies. As a result of his conduct, Hipple i) violated the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act, filed false Sarbanes-Oxley executive certifications, misled iWorld’s auditors, falsified books and records, and knowingly circumvented internal controls; ii) violated Section 57(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act; and iii) aided and abetted and caused iWorld’s violations of the reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the Exchange Act, and iWorld’s violations of the BDC books and records provision of the Investment Company Act.
B. RESPONDENT
Robert John Hipple, age 64, resides in Cocoa, Florida. He is an attorney licensed in Florida and Georgia. Hipple and an associate controlled the management and operations of iWorld Projects and Systems, Inc. (“iWorld Florida”), a private Florida company, when it was acquired in early 2005 by iWorld Projects & Systems, Inc. (“iWorld”), a business development company. At the time, Hipple was the CEO of iWorld Florida. After the acquisition, Hipple formally became iWorld’s CEO and remained in that position until he resigned in March 2006. He also acted as iWorld’s principal financial officer.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2010/34-61688.pdf

2007
Plaintiff-appellee David K. Broadbent (“Receiver”) in his capacity as Receiver for Merrill Scott & Associates, Ltd. (“Merrill Scott”) was awarded summary judgment against defendant-appellant Robert J. Hipple after the district court determined that Mr. Hipple breached his fiduciary duties as an officer and director of Merrill Scott. Mr. Hipple appeals, contending among other things that the complaint should have been dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) for failure to join an indispensable party.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the district court’s denial of Mr. Hipple’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, because the court unquestionably had jurisdiction over the action in which the Receiver was appointed, and this action was clearly filed in furtherance of the Receiver’s goals. We also affirm the district court’s decision to strike Mr. Hipple’s motion for summary judgment as untimely

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/11/07-4078.pdf

Hope this helps you to understand why I think Hipples a crook, and there is more, but I thought this would be enough. GL