Former Chairman of Board of Uni-Pixel Gets SEC Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Uni-Pixel, a developer of technologies for touchscreen devices, will pay $750,000 to settle charges that it misled investors about the production status and sales agreements for a key product.

uni

Two former company executives face related charges in an SEC complaint.

And the SEC entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the company’s former chairman of the board — Bernard Marren — who has agreed to cooperate and be barred from serving as an officer and director for five years.

The deferred prosecution agreement with Marren alleges that he became aware that information in Uni-Pixel’s press releases was inaccurate but failed to ensure that the company corrected the releases.

The agreement requires him to cooperate with the SEC’s continuing case while complying with certain undertakings in order to avoid civil charges against him.

Marren was represented by Steve Korotash of Morgan Lewis in Dallas.

Uni-Pixel was represented by  Toby Galloway at Kelly Hart & Hallman in Ft. Worth.

The SEC alleges that Uni-Pixel Inc. began publicly touting sales of a touchscreen sensor product supposedly in speedy high-volume commercial production when in fact only a few samples had been manually completed.

The misrepresentations caused Uni-Pixel’s stock price to more than double, enabling then-CEO Reed Killion and then-CFO Jeffrey Tomz to make more than $2 million in personal profits from selling their own shares of company stock.

Killion and Tomz allegedly knew the company’s statements were untrue and Uni-Pixel’s manufacturing process was still incapable of mass producing commercial quantities of sensors.

Killion and Tomz were represented by Paul Bessette of King & Spalding in Austin.

“We allege that Uni-Pixel and top executives portrayed a company whose technology had arrived when in truth it was still in the developmental stage,” said Shamoil T. Shipchandler, Director of the SEC’s Fort Worth Regional Office.  “Tech companies and their officers must be honest with investors about the state of their products and cannot portray them as something they are not.”

Uni-Pixel announced “multi-million dollar” sales agreements in 2012 and 2013 that highlighted potential revenues but omitted material conditions the company had to meet to actually receive those revenues.

Uni-Pixel announced in April 2013 that its high-volume production line was “qualified and production ready” and its capacity “started at fifty moving to hundreds and then thousands over the next several months.”

At the time, Uni-Pixel had yet to produce any functional sensors through its high-speed process.

Uni-Pixel issued a press release in November 2013 touting a “purchase order” for its sensors that expected to ship an initial “commercial run” of sensors by year-end.  The company concealed that the order was for a mere $10 worth of sensors for the customer to review as samples.

Copyright © Corporate Crime Reporter
In Print 48 Weeks A Year

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress