UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Rel. No.48757 / November 7, 2003

Admin. Proc. File 3-11028

This matter comes before the Commission on the Division of Enforcement's motion to strike for failure to comply with the Commission's Rule of Practice 410(b) the petition for review of the initial decision of an administrative law judge filed by Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C. Tosto ("Lybrand").¹ Rule 410(b) provides that a petition for review "shall set forth the specific findings and conclusions of the initial decision as to which exception is taken, together with supporting reasons for each exception."¹ The Division asserts that Lybrand's petition is invalid because it fails to comply with these requirements. Lybrand has not responded to the Division's motion.

On September 15, 2003, Lybrand filed a petition, stating merely that he "respectfully files his Petition for Review of said decision, dated September 3, 2003, and rendered by the Honorable Lillian A. McEwen, Administrative Judge[,] pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 201.360, Rule 360(d)(1), Commission's Rules of Practice." The petition for review did not identify findings and conclusions of the law judge's decision as to which Lybrand took exception, and it did not supply supporting reasons for his exceptions. As a result, the petition for review failed to comply with Rule of Practice 410(b).

On September 24, 2003, the Office of the Secretary contacted Lybrand's counsel and informed him that the petition for review was deficient. The Office of the Secretary advised counsel to cure the deficiency by filing a new petition containing Lybrand's exceptions to the law judge's decision with supporting reasons by close of business on September 25, 2003.

As of this date, Lybrand has not cured the deficient petition. Pursuant to Rule of Practice 180(b), the Commission has the authority to reject filings that fail to meet the requirements of the Rules of Practice.³ We therefore strike Lybrand's petition for review, dated September 15, 2003. The time for filing a petition for review of the law judge's September 3, 2003, initial decision has expired. Lybrand has failed to file a petition for review that complies with Rule of Practice 410(b). The Commission has not chosen to review the law judge's initial decision on its own initiative.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Division of Enforcement's motion to strike be, and it hereby is, granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the petition for review filed by Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C. Tosto on September 15, 2003, be, and it hereby is, stricken.

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Rule 360(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, that the initial decision of the administrative law judge has become the final decision of the Commission with respect to Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C. Tosto.⁴ The order contained in the decision permanently barring Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C. Tosto from participating in any offering of penny stock, including acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, or other person who engages in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny stock, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any penny stock, is hereby declared effective.

By the Commission.

¹ Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C. Tosto, Initial Decision Rel. No. 234 (Sept. 3, 2003), __ SEC Docket __.

² 17 C.F.R. § 201.410(b).

³ 17 C.F.R. § 201.180(b).

⁴ Peter C. Lybrand f/k/a Peter C. Tosto, Initial Decision Rel. No. 234 (Sept. 3, 2003), __ SEC Docket __.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/aljdec/34-48757.htm