Valicenti Advisory Services, Inc. v. SEC case brief summary
198 F.3d 62 (1999)
CASE FACTS
Petitioners, advisory organization and its president, petitioned the court for review of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (Commission) opinion and order pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. §§ 702-706, 15 U.S.C.S. § 80b-13. Petitioners argued that the evidence in the record was insufficient to support either the finding of scienter or the finding that petitioner's chart was materially misleading. Petitioners also argued that the Commission's finding offended due process because they had insufficient notice that their conduct was unlawful. Finally, petitioners argued that the sanctions exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and constituted an abuse of discretion.
DISCUSSION
The court found that the findings of the Commission were supported by substantial evidence, and affirmed the judgment of the Commission in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
The opinion and order was affirmed; the evidence showed that petitioners' chart was materially misleading, and that the findings were supported by substantial evidence. The sanctions imposed did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
198 F.3d 62 (1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners, advisory organization and
its president, sought review of an opinion and order of the
Securities and Exchange Commission that found petitioners in
violation of the Investment Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 80b-1
et seq., and imposed sanctions.CASE FACTS
Petitioners, advisory organization and its president, petitioned the court for review of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (Commission) opinion and order pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. §§ 702-706, 15 U.S.C.S. § 80b-13. Petitioners argued that the evidence in the record was insufficient to support either the finding of scienter or the finding that petitioner's chart was materially misleading. Petitioners also argued that the Commission's finding offended due process because they had insufficient notice that their conduct was unlawful. Finally, petitioners argued that the sanctions exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and constituted an abuse of discretion.
DISCUSSION
The court found that the findings of the Commission were supported by substantial evidence, and affirmed the judgment of the Commission in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
The opinion and order was affirmed; the evidence showed that petitioners' chart was materially misleading, and that the findings were supported by substantial evidence. The sanctions imposed did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
No comments:
Post a Comment