Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a Russian citizen, petitioned the court to review the default order the SEC entered against him for failing to respond to administrative proceedings initiated by the SEC on allegations that he violated securities laws. The court agreed with petitioner that the SEC's application of Rule 155(b), 17 C.F.R. 201.155(b), was inconsistent with its precedent and therefore arbitrary. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the SEC's order denying petitioner's motion to set aside the default entered against him, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rapoport v. SEC" on Justia Law

This case was before the court on a petition to review the opinion and order of the Commission permanently denying petitioner, an attorney admitted to practice in New York state, the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission, pursuant to rule 102(3)(1)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, and Section 4C of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Act), 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. On appeal, petitioner contended that the procedure employed by the Commission was unconstitutional. The court held that the Commission acted within its authority in sanctioning him; petitioner was on notice of his duty to comply with the New York Bar disciplinary rules and the standard of conduct proscribed by Rule 102(3)(1)(ii) and Section 4C of the Act; there was substantial evidence for the Commission's finding that petitioner engaged in intentional improper professional conduct; and the Commission did not abuse its discretion in its choice of sanctioning petitioner. Accordingly, the petition for review was denied. View "Altman v. SEC" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the United States' prosecution of Walter A. Forbes for securities fraud. Appellant, Forbes' defense counsel, sent out Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, requests to the SEC, seeking, among other things, the notes of SEC staff members taken during their conversations with certain government witnesses and their attorneys. On appeal, appellant argued that the Department of Justice's disclosure of 11 of the requested set of notes waived work product protection, not only for the documents that were released, but also for the remaining 103 sets of SEC notes. The court held that the controversy was moot with respect to the 11 documents because they had been disclosed by the Justice Department. As to the remaining 103 sets of notes, the court did not believe the SEC waived work product protection or that the Justice Department's action in the criminal trial had that effect. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Williams & Connolly v. SEC" on Justia Law

As part of a civil enforcement action brought by the SEC, the district court entered a disgorgement order against Peter S. Cahill, imposing joint and several liability for the full proceeds of his sales of stock in a small, thinly traded corporation not listed on a major stock exchange. Cahill challenged the order. The court held that because Cahill presented no evidence in rebuttal, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the SEC had met its burden to show that his ill-gotten gains were the full proceeds of his stock sales at inflated prices resulting from a fraudulent "pump and dump" scheme. Neither did the district court abuse its discretion in crafting the disgorgement remedy. Inclusion of the transferred funds was consistent with the court's precedent. Absent any rationale for a different approach, the court joined other circuits in holding that the imposition of joint and several liability for the amount ordered to be disgorged did not require proof of a close relationship among the defendants beyond their collaboration in the fraudulent scheme in violation of the securities laws. Accordingly, because Cahill's evidentiary objections were also unavailing, the court affirmed the order of disgorgement. View "Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. Whittemore, et al." on Justia Law

In this civil enforcement action, a jury found that appellant aided and abetted a securities fraud by his former employer, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 78t(e). The district court fined appellant and barred him from serving as an officer or director of a publicly held company for five years. On appeal, appellant argued that the district court erred in allowing his trial to proceed in the District of Columbia pursuant to the "co-conspirator theory of venue." The court held that the SEC failed to lay venue in the District of Columbia under the straightforward language of 15 U.S.C. 78aa. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the district court was instructed to dismiss the case without prejudice. View "Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. Johnson, Jr., et al." on Justia Law

This case concerned petitioner's handling of accounts belonging to seven Wachovia Securities, Inc. (Wachovia) customers. Petitioner, a registered representative associated with Wachovia, a member of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), petitioned for review of an order of the SEC sustaining a disciplinary action against her by the NYSE. The court denied the petition for review and affirmed the SEC order because the court concluded that the SEC's decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

Petitioners, each of which had corporate members that issued publicly traded securities, petitioned for review of Exchange Act Rule 14a-11. At issue was whether the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated the rule in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., because, among other things, the Commission failed adequately to consider the rule's effect upon efficiency, competition, and capital formation, as required by Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act and Section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act and Section 2(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 78c(f) and 80a-2(c). The court held that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed once again to adequately assess the economic effects of a new rule. The court also held that the Commission inconsistently and opportunistically framed the costs and benefits of the rule; failed adequately to quantify the certain costs or to explain why those costs could not be quantified; neglected to support its predictive judgments; contradicted itself; and failed to respond to substantial problems raised by commenters. Therefore, the Commission's decision to apply the rule to investment companies was also arbitrary. Because the court concluded that the Commission failed to justify Rule 14a-11, the court need not address petitioners' additional argument that the Commission arbitrarily rejected proposed alternatives that would have allowed shareholders of each company to decide for that company whether to adopt a mechanism for shareholders' nominees to get access to proxy materials. Accordingly, the petition was granted and the rule was vacated.

In this civil enforcement action, a jury found appellant aided and abetted a securities fraud by his former employer in violation of 15 U.S.C. 78t(e). At issue was whether the district court erred in allowing appellant's trial to proceed in the District of Columbia pursuant to the "co-conspirator theory of venue." The court held that the SEC failed to lay venue in the District of Columbia under the "straightforward language of [section 78aa]." Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court on the basis of improper venue in light of Olberling v. Illinois Central and the district court was instructed to dismiss the case without prejudice.