Gallard v. United States Government

S.D. New York

Gallard v. United States Government

882 F. Supp. 1440, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6386, 1995 WL 276078

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMay 10, 1995

DocketNo. 94 Civ. 8535 (HB)

StatusPublished

This text of 882 F. Supp. 1440 (Gallard v. United States Government) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gallard v. United States Government, 882 F. Supp. 1440, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6386, 1995 WL 276078 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

BAER, District Judge.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted.

[1441]*1441Plaintiff John Gallará claimed that defendants damaged his business by engaging in a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation during which the SEC subpoenaed certain information concerning plaintiff’s financial transactions from third party banks, brokers, and individuals. This contact, asserted Gallará, led to entities ceasing their business with him.

I have reviewed in camera the correspondence that the SEC sent out. While the correspondence related that the SEC was in the process of conducting an “investigation,” it almost always cautioned that “[t]his investigation is confidential and non-public [and that] [t]his request should not be construed as an indication by the Commission or its staff that any violations of law have occurred nor should it be considered a reflection upon any person, entity, or security.” Notwithstanding this language, it is not difficult to envision certain third parties choosing not to do business with the subject of an SEC investigation. Because this “quarantine” appears to be an unavoidable consequence of the SEC obtaining the information it needs to police the securities markets, any resulting injury can generally not be actionable.

If, however, the subject of such an investigation can show that “a subpoena [had not been] issued in good faith but to harass or pressure the subject of an investigation, or for any other improper purpose,” SEC v. Brigadoon Scotch Distrib., 480 F.2d 1047, 1056 (2d Cir.1973) (stating that courts should not enforce subpoenas issued under such circumstances (citing United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 255, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964))), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 1410, 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974), then the interesting question arises as to whether the SEC would be liable for the subject’s damages pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. That question is not reached here, because plaintiff has not credibly implicated the SEC’s motive. Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this case is granted.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

BAER, District Judge.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted.

[1441]*1441Plaintiff John Gallará claimed that defendants damaged his business by engaging in a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation during which the SEC subpoenaed certain information concerning plaintiff’s financial transactions from third party banks, brokers, and individuals. This contact, asserted Gallará, led to entities ceasing their business with him.

I have reviewed in camera the correspondence that the SEC sent out. While the correspondence related that the SEC was in the process of conducting an “investigation,” it almost always cautioned that “[t]his investigation is confidential and non-public [and that] [t]his request should not be construed as an indication by the Commission or its staff that any violations of law have occurred nor should it be considered a reflection upon any person, entity, or security.” Notwithstanding this language, it is not difficult to envision certain third parties choosing not to do business with the subject of an SEC investigation. Because this “quarantine” appears to be an unavoidable consequence of the SEC obtaining the information it needs to police the securities markets, any resulting injury can generally not be actionable.

If, however, the subject of such an investigation can show that “a subpoena [had not been] issued in good faith but to harass or pressure the subject of an investigation, or for any other improper purpose,” SEC v. Brigadoon Scotch Distrib., 480 F.2d 1047, 1056 (2d Cir.1973) (stating that courts should not enforce subpoenas issued under such circumstances (citing United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 255, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964))), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 1410, 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974), then the interesting question arises as to whether the SEC would be liable for the subject’s damages pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. That question is not reached here, because plaintiff has not credibly implicated the SEC’s motive. Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this case is granted.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 F. Supp. 1440, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6386, 1995 WL 276078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallard-v-united-states-government-nysd-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack