| |
| |
| |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| Before the |
| SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION |
| |
| |
| SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 |
| Release No. 9565 / March 27, 2014 |
| |
| SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
| Release No. 71823 / March 27, 2014 |
| |
| ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT |
| Release No. 3545 / March 27, 2014 |
| |
| ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING |
| File No. 3-15815 |
| |
| |
| In the Matter of |
| |
| L&L ENERGY, INC. |
| and DICKSON LEE, CPA |
| |
| Respondents. |
| |
| |
| ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE |
| AND CEASE-AND-DESIST PROCEEDINGS |
| PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE |
| SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND SECTIONS |
| 4C AND 21C OF THE SECURITIES |
| EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND RULE 102(e) |
| OF THE COMMISSION’S RULES OF |
| PRACTICE AND NOTICE OF HEARING |
| |
| |
| I. |
| |
| The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the |
| public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, |
| instituted pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Sections 4C |
| and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 102(e) of the |
| Commission’s Rules of Practice against Dickson Lee, and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and |
| hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act and Section 21C against L&L |
| Energy, Inc. |
| |
| II. |
| |
| After an investigation, the Division of Enforcement alleges that: |
| |
| |
| 2 |
| SUMMARY |
| |
| This action arises out of a fraudulent scheme by L&L Energy and Dickson Lee to create the |
| appearance that L&L was run by a professional management team and conceal Lee’s single-handed |
| control of the company. L&L Energy is a Seattle-headquartered coal company with all of its |
| operations in China and Taiwan. At all relevant times, it was led by Dickson Lee, its current |
| Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. From approximately August 2008 to June |
| 2009, L&L and Lee repeatedly and fraudulently misrepresented to the public that it had certain |
| persons serving in critical executive management roles at the company when, in reality, those |
| persons served in no such roles. |
| |
| First, in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2008, L&L falsely represented that Lee’s brother |
| served as the company’s CEO when, in reality, Lee served in that role and ran the day to day |
| operations of the company. In that same filing, L&L represented that a former company employee |
| (“the purported Acting CFO”) had served as the company’s Acting Chief Financial Officer when, in |
| reality, the purported Acting CFO had emailed Lee a month prior to the 2008 Form 10-K and |
| rejected the Acting CFO position. In the company’s next three quarterly report filings for 2009, |
| L&L and Lee continued to misrepresent that the purported Acting CFO was in fact the company’s |
| Acting CFO. For example, L&L’s public filings contained certifications required under the |
| Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley) that ostensibly bore the purported Acting CFO’s |
| electronic signature when, in reality, the purported Acting CFO had not signed any L&L public |
| filings during this period; did not provide authorization for her signature to be placed on any L&L |
| public filings; and did not perform any of the reviews necessary to have a basis for any of the |
| attestations contained on the Sarbanes-Oxley certifications. |
| |
| In approximately May 2009, the purported Acting CFO learned that L&L had been falsely |
| representing her as the company’s Acting CFO and confronted Lee and the chair of L&L’s Audit |
| Committee. In response, Lee separately admitted to the purported Acting CFO and the Audit |
| Committee Chair that the purported Acting CFO had not performed the duties of L&L’s Acting |
| CFO, and then directed the Audit Committee Chair to conceal this fact from both the company’s |
| Board and the public. Lee maintained his fraudulent scheme by continuing to falsely represent to |
| L&L’s Board of Directors that the purported Acting CFO had served as the Acting CFO. Lastly, |
| during the fall of 2009, in connection with an application for L&L to gain listing on NASDAQ, Lee |
| misled NASDAQ by informing it that the company had made all of the required Sarbanes-Oxley |
| certifications – including during the period of the purported Acting CFO’s ostensible service. As a |
| result, L&L became listed on the NASDAQ. |
| |
| RESPONDENTS |
| |
| 1. L&L is a Seattle, Washington headquartered coal company with all of its operations |
| in China and Taiwan. The company became public through a reverse merger in August 2001. |
| L&L’s common stock is registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(b), |
| and its stock is currently listed on NASDAQ. |
| 2. Dickson Lee, age 65, is the company’s founder and has been L&L’s Chairman of |
| the Board and Chief Executive Officer since August 2008. Lee previously served as CEO from |
| 3 |
| 1995 through July 2007 and Chairman at various periods. He previously held CPA licenses in |
| Washington and New York (both licenses have lapsed, with the Washington license lapsing in June |
| 2012) and previously audited public companies. Lee obtained his Series 7 license in 1998 and his |
| Series 24 and 27 licenses in 2000. Lee was an associated person with a number of broker dealers |
| until about 2005. |
| FACTS |
| A. The Purported Acting CFO Rejects Acting CFO Position |
| |
| 3. In August 2007, L&L publicly announced that Lee had resigned his position as |
| L&L’s Chairman of the Board and CEO. Lee resigned those positions shortly after he was |
| disciplined by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) and received a one- |
| year suspension for conducting private placement offerings of L&L securities in which the private |
| placement memoranda contained false statements. Lee believed that, if he was an L&L officer, his |
| suspension would impede L&L from becoming listed on a stock exchange. |
| 4. At that time, Lee installed his brother as the CEO of L&L (hereinafter “Lee’s |
| brother”). During the one-year period (August 2007 – August 2008) in which Lee’s brother held |
| the title of L&L’s CEO, however, Lee continued to run the company as he had when he held the |
| title of CEO. |
| 5. In January 2008, L&L’s stock became quoted on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin |
| Board (“OTCBB”). In order to gain listing on a larger trading venue, such as NASDAQ, Lee |
| sought to hire a Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”). |
| 6. L&L hired a CFO in February 2008, but within two months that person resigned. |
| As L&L sought a replacement CFO, Lee proposed the name of a former employee and L&L |
| director (hereinafter, “the purported Acting CFO”) as a candidate for L&L’s Acting CFO position. |
| 7. In approximately June 2008, Lee, on L&L’s behalf, engaged a U.S.-based placement |
| agent (the “placement agent”) to assist L&L in raising money from investors. This placement agent |
| encouraged L&L to hire a CFO. In a June 18, 2008 email, Lee referred to the purported Acting |
| CFO as a member of the management team that had been requested by the placement agent. In |
| another June 2008 email, Lee wrote that the purported Acting CFO could become L&L’s Acting |
| CFO in order to meet the placement agent’s “requirement.” |
| 8. On June 23, 2008, members of L&L’s board and Lee held a meeting. At that |
| meeting, Lee communicated that the purported Acting CFO would be appointed as the company’s |
| Acting CFO because the placement agent “suggested that L&L needs to have [an] Acting CFO (a |
| Non-Officer position) as one of the conditions to move L&L’s funding forward.” |
| 9. On that same day, at Lee’s instruction, Lee’s assistant sent the purported Acting |
| CFO an email thanking her for becoming L&L’s Acting CFO. The purported Acting CFO, |
| however, had never accepted the Acting CFO position. |
| 4 |
| 10. On July 14, 2008, the purported Acting CFO forwarded to Lee the June 23, 2008 |
| email she received from his assistant regarding the Acting CFO position and informed Lee that she |
| was “unable to become L&L Acting CFO as I don’t have time to make any contribution to L&L. I |
| need to take care of my own job and my kids as well . . . I wish you could find a more suitable CFO |
| soon.” |
| B. L&L Falsely Represents Lee’s Brother and the Purported Acting CFO as the |
| Company’s CEO and Acting CFO |
| |
| 11. On August 12, 2008, L&L filed its Form 10-K with the Commission for its fiscal |
| year ended April 30, 2008 (the “2008 Form 10-K”). Lee reviewed the filing before it was made |
| public. |
| 12. L&L, in its 2008 Form 10-K, falsely represented that Lee’s brother had performed |
| the functions of the company’s CEO when, in reality, Lee continued to perform the functions of the |
| company’s CEO. |
| 13. Moreover, in that same filing, L&L reported for the first time that the purported |
| Acting CFO had been named as the company’s Acting CFO, disclosing that “she is a CPA with |
| experience of both U.S. and China accounting practices. She was a senior auditing manager for a |
| New York CPA firm with PCAOB qualification, and conducted US GAAP audits for US public |
| listed companies.” These representations were false because the purported Acting CFO had |
| rejected the Acting CFO position. |
| 14. L&L’s 2008 Form 10-K contained certifications required under Sarbanes-Oxley for |
| the company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, namely, its CEO and CFO. |
| These certifications contained the electronic signatures of both Lee’s brother and the purported |
| Acting CFO by which each of them attested to, among other things, the fact that the 2008 Form 10- |
| K contained no untrue statements of material fact. |
| 15. Neither Lee’s brother nor the purported Acting CFO, however, provided any such |
| attestation and neither Lee’s brother nor the purported Acting CFO provided any authorization to |
| have their electronic signatures placed on their respective Sarbanes-Oxley certifications. |
| 16. L&L, in its 2008 Form 10-K, also falsely represented that it had – with the |
| participation of its CEO (Lee’s brother) and CFO (the purported Acting CFO) – evaluated the |
| effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures, and based on |
| such evaluation, the company, its CEO (Lee’s brother), and CFO (the purported Acting CFO) |
| concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective. |
| |
| C. L&L and Lee Continue their Scheme to Falsely Represent the Purported Acting CFO |
| as the Acting CFO |
| |
| 17. On August 25, 2008, after his one-year NASD suspension was over, Lee officially |
| returned to the position of L&L’s CEO and Chairman of the Board. |
| 5 |
| 18. On September 15, 2008, L&L filed with the Commission its Form 10-Q for the |
| period ended July 31, 2009 (the “First Quarter 2009 Form 10-Q”). Lee signed the filing. Like the |
| 2008 Form 10-K, the First Quarter 2009 Form 10-Q contained a Sarbanes-Oxley certification that |
| was ostensibly electronically signed by the purported Acting CFO. Moreover, the First Quarter |
| 2009 Form 10-K also contained the representation that the CEO (Lee) and the purported Acting |
| CFO had evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of the company’s disclosure |
| controls and procedures and those controls and procedures were effective. |
| 19. The purported Acting CFO, however, did not serve as the company’s Acting CFO in |
| any capacity; did not authorize her electronic signature to be placed on the Sarbanes-Oxley |
| certifications; did not perform any of the reviews or functions enumerated on the Sarbanes-Oxley |
| certifications; and did not evaluate the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and |
| procedures. |
| 20. The First Quarter 2009 Form 10-Q also contained a Sarbanes-Oxley certification for |
| Lee. In his Sarbanes-Oxley certification, Lee falsely certified that, to his knowledge, L&L’s First |
| Quarter 2009 Form 10-Q contained no untrue statements of material fact. |
| 21. In approximately December 2008, L&L retained a U.S.-based investment research |
| firm to write a research report concerning L&L. In late December 2008, the research firm emailed |
| Lee a draft research report for his review. The research report contained a prominent section on |
| L&L’s management team, listed the purported Acting CFO as the company’s CFO and stated that |
| the purported Acting CFO “coordinates all accounting for L&L.” Lee sent a revised version of the |
| research report to the research firm with some “minor changes,” but did not correct the false |
| statements regarding the purported Acting CFO. This report was published in approximately April |
| 2009 and included the false statements regarding the role of the purported Acting CFO. |
| 22. On December 22, 2008, L&L filed with the Commission its Form 10-Q for the |
| period ended October 31, 2008, and on March 23, 2009, L&L filed with the Commission its Form |
| 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2009. Lee signed both of these filings. These two public |
| filings again contained false, electronically signed, Sarbanes-Oxley certifications by the purported |
| Acting CFO. Moreover, these two filings contained the false statements concerning the purported |
| Acting CFO’s evaluation of the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures. |
| 23. These two public filings also contained Lee’s own Sarbanes-Oxley certification in |
| which he again falsely certified that, to his knowledge, the Form 10-Qs contained no untrue |
| statements of material fact. |
| 24. As noted above, L&L placed electronic signatures on the public filings to reflect that |
| the purported Acting CFO had signed the requisite Sarbanes-Oxley certifications. The Commission |
| staff requested from L&L, but never received, the actual signature pages bearing the purported |
| Acting CFO’s signature for each of the requisite Sarbanes-Oxley certifications. |
| 25. On August 12, 2009, L&L filed its 2009 Form 10-K, which contained Lee’s |
| Sarbanes-Oxley certification that, based on his and the CFO’s most recent evaluation of the |
| company’s internal control over financial reporting, all fraud involving management had been |
| 6 |
| disclosed to the company’s auditors and to the company’s Audit Committee. This certification was |
| false because Lee had not disclosed to the company’s external auditors or the company’s entire |
| Audit Committee that the purported Acting CFO was misrepresented in L&L’s previous filings as |
| its Acting CFO. |
| D. Lee Admits to Purported Acting CFO that She Did Not Perform the Work of the |
| Acting CFO |
| |
| 26. In approximately May 2009, the purported Acting CFO became aware that L&L had |
| falsely represented her as the company’s Acting CFO in the company’s public filings and, on May |
| 6, 2009, sent Lee an email that included her July 14, 2008 email in which she rejected the Acting |
| CFO position. In the email, the purported Acting CFO wrote that she “clearly indicated that [she] |
| would not accept the offer of being the Acting CFO of L&L,” and asked Lee for an immediate |
| explanation. |
| 27. On May 13, 2009, Lee emailed the purported Acting CFO and wrote, “[t]here is a |
| misunderstanding of the Acting CFO role . . . Based on your input, your name is removed to please |
| you.” The purported Acting CFO replied that – just because she and Lee had known each other for |
| ten years – it did not mean “that you could use my name, without authorisation, to the file 10K to |
| the U.S. SEC.” In response, on May 19, 2009, Lee emailed the purported Acting CFO and |
| separately admitted, “[y]ou did not actually conduct the work as Acting [CFO].” |
| E. Lee Admits to L&L’s Audit Committee Chair That Purported Acting CFO Did Not |
| Serve as Acting CFO |
| |
| 28. On May 21, 2009, the purported Acting CFO emailed Shirley Kiang, who was then |
| the Chair of L&L’s Audit Committee and member of its Board of Directors. In the email, the |
| purported Acting CFO told Kiang that she had a “serious and urgent” matter related to L&L’s |
| public information made without her knowledge and asked Kiang to investigate. |
| 29. Kiang subsequently contacted Lee and asked whether the purported Acting CFO had |
| actually served as the company’s Acting CFO. Lee initially informed Kiang that the purported |
| Acting CFO had served as the company’s Acting CFO and was making false allegations in an |
| attempt to obtain money from the company. |
| 30. Kiang asked Lee for evidence to support his assertion that the purported Acting CFO |
| had served as the company’s Acting CFO. In response, Lee provided Kiang with a letter that |
| appeared to be addressed to the purported Acting CFO, dated May 28, 2008, and purported to be |
| signed by Lee’s brother as the company’s CEO. The letter asked the purported Acting CFO to |
| confirm that she had agreed to accept the Acting CFO position and stated that if the company did |
| not receive a response to the letter within ten days, the company would treat her lack of response as |
| her acceptance of the position. |
| 31. This letter, however, was not created on May 28, 2008; was not signed by Lee’s |
| brother; and was never sent to the purported Acting CFO. Rather, this letter was created on May 26, |
| 7 |
| 2009 – almost one year after the purported Acting CFO had rejected the Acting CFO position – and |
| was stored in Lee’s L&L computer network folder. |
| 32. On June 4, 2009 – after receiving no response from Kiang – the purported Acting |
| CFO emailed Kiang again. The purported Acting CFO again asked Kiang to investigate her |
| allegations, specifically that she was misrepresented in L&L’s filings as the company’s Acting |
| CFO, and included her July 14, 2008 email to Dickson Lee rejecting the Acting CFO position. |
| 33. After receiving the June 4 email, Kiang again asked Dickson Lee for an explanation. |
| Lee then admitted to Kiang that the purported Acting CFO had not actually served as the company’s |
| Acting CFO and that he had used the purported Acting CFO’s name on L&L’s public filings |
| without the purported Acting CFO’s permission. Lee directed Kiang to not disclose this |
| information to anyone, including the company’s Board of Directors or the public, and told her that if |
| this information became publicly known, L&L’s stock price would drop. |
| 34. After this, Lee continued to falsely represent to the company’s Board of Directors |
| that the purported Acting CFO had served as the company’s Acting CFO. |
| 35. During the nearly one-year period in which the purported Acting CFO was falsely |
| represented as the company’s Acting CFO, L&L raised approximately $750,000 from investors |
| using stock purchase agreements in which L&L expressly attested to the accuracy of its public |
| filings and private placement documents that referred the investor to publicly available additional |
| information about the company. |
| F. L&L Makes Materially False and Misleading Statements on NASDAQ Application to |
| Gain NASDAQ Listing |
| |
| 36. In approximately September 2009, L&L completed an application to become listed |
| on the NASDAQ. As part of the application process, NASDAQ requested a variety of information, |
| including confirmation that the company had made all of the required Sarbanes-Oxley certifications. |
| 37. L&L, in a communication from Lee, confirmed that the company had made all of |
| the required Sarbanes-Oxley certifications. L&L misled NASDAQ in this communication because |
| it did not inform NASDAQ that its required CFO Sarbanes-Oxley certifications for its 2008 Form |
| 10-K or its three 2009 Form 10-Qs were false. As a result, L&L gained listing on NASDAQ in |
| February 2010. |
| |
| VIOLATIONS |
| 38. By engaging in the conduct described above, L&L violated – and Lee willfully |
| violated – Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, which prohibits fraudulent |
| conduct in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Also, by engaging in the conduct |
| described above, Lee willfully aided and abetted and caused L&L’s violations of Section 10(b) of |
| the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder. |
| 8 |
| 39. By engaging in the conduct described above, L&L violated – and Lee willfully |
| violated – Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, which prohibits fraudulent conduct in the offer or sale |
| of securities. |
| 40. By engaging in the conduct described above, L&L violated – and Lee willfully aided |
| and abetted and caused violations of – Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a- |
| 13 thereunder, which require issuers of registered securities to file factually accurate annual and |
| quarterly reports. Also, L&L violated – and Lee willfully aided and abetted and caused violations |
| of – Rule 12b-20 of the Exchange Act, which requires the addition to such reports of further |
| material information necessary to make the required report statements not misleading. |
| 41. By engaging in the conduct described above, L&L violated – and Lee willfully |
| violated, and willfully aided and abetted and caused violations of – Rule 13a-14 of the Exchange |
| Act, which requires, among other things, that principal executive and financial officers certify that |
| based on their knowledge, the issuer’s financial statements are accurate, and that, based on the |
| principal executive and financial officer’s most recent evaluation of the company’s internal control |
| over financial reporting, they have disclosed all fraud, whether or not material, involving |
| management to the company’s auditors and Audit Committee. |
| 42. By engaging in the conduct described above, L&L violated – and Lee willfully aided |
| and abetted and caused violations of – Rule 13a-15 of the Exchange Act, which requires each |
| issuer’s management, with the participation of the company’s principal executive officer and |
| principal accounting officer, or persons performing similar functions, to evaluate the effectiveness |
| of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures on a quarterly basis. |
| 43. By engaging in the conduct described above, L&L violated – and Lee willfully aided |
| and abetted and caused violations of – Section 302 of Regulation S-T of the Exchange Act, which |
| requires that (i) a signatory to an electronic filing actually sign the signature page before or at the |
| time of the electronic filing; (ii) the filer retain the original executed document for five years; and |
| (iii) that the filer provide the Commission staff with a copy of the document upon request. |
| III. |
| In view of the allegations made by the Division of Enforcement, the Commi ssion deems |
| it necessary and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings |
| against Lee, and public cease-and-desist proceedings against L&L, be instituted to determine: |
| A. Whether the allegations set forth in Section II hereof are true and, in connection |
| therewith, to afford Respondents an opportunity to establish any defenses to such |
| allegations; |
| B. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against L&L, |
| including, but not limited to, disgorgement and civil penalties pursuant to Section |
| 21B of the Exchange Act and Section 8A of the Securities Act; |
| 9 |
| C. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against Lee, |
| including, but not limited to, disgorgement and civil penalties pursuant to Section |
| 21B of the Exchange Act and Section 8A of the Securities Act; |
| D. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against Lee, |
| including, but not limited to, a permanent officer and director bar pursuant to Section |
| 21C(f) of the Exchange Act and Section 20(e) of the Securities Act; |
| E. What, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against Lee, |
| including, but not limited to, being permanently denied the privilege of appearing or |
| practicing before the Commission pursuant to Section 4C of the Exchange Act and |
| Rule 102(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice; |
| F. Whether, pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act and Section 21C of the |
| Exchange Act, L&L should be ordered to cease and desist from committing or |
| causing violations of and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act |
| Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 13(a) of |
| the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder, Exchange Act |
| Rules 13a-14 and 13a-15, and Section 302(b) of Regulation S-T of the Exchange Act; |
| and |
| G. Whether, pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act and Section 21C of the |
| Exchange Act, Lee should be ordered to cease and desist from committing or causing |
| violations of and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section |
| 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 13(a) of the |
| Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder, Exchange Act Rules |
| 13a-14, and 13a-15, and Section 302(b) of Regulation S-T of the Exchange Act. |
| IV. |
| |
| IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on the |
| questions set forth in Section III hereof shall be convened not earlier than 30 days and not later |
| than 60 days from service of this Order at a time and place to be fixed, and before an |
| Administrative Law Judge to be designated by further order as provided by Rule 110 of the |
| Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.110. |
| |
| IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that L&L and Lee shall file Answers to the allegations |
| contained in this Order within twenty (20) days after service of this Order, as provided by Rule |
| 220 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.220. |
| |
| If Respondents fail to file the directed answer, or fail to appear at a hearing after being |
| duly notified, the Respondents may be deemed in default and the proceedings may be determined |
| against them upon consideration of this Order, the allegations of which may be deemed to be true |
| as provided by Rules 155(a), 220(f), 221(f) and 310 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 |
| C.F.R. §§ 201.155(a), 201.220(f), 201.221(f) and 201.310. |
| |
| 10 |
| This Order shall be served forthwith upon Respondents personally or by certified mail. |
| |
| IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an initial |
| decision no later than 300 days from the date of service of this Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) |
| of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. |
| In the absence of an appropriate waiver, no officer or employee of the Commission |
| engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions in this or any factually related |
| proceeding will be permitted to participate or advise in the decision of this matter, except as |
| witness or counsel in proceedings held pursuant to notice. Since this proceeding is not “rule |
| making” within the meaning of Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not deemed |
| subject to the provisions of Section 553 delaying the effective date of any final Commission action. |
| |
| By the Commission. |
| |
| |
| Jill M. Peterson |
| Assistant Secretary |
| |
