Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jamie L. Solow

396 F. App'x 635
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedSeptember 20, 2010
Docket10-10360
StatusUnpublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 396 F. App'x 635 (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jamie L. Solow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jamie L. Solow, 396 F. App'x 635 (11th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In S.E.C. v. Solow, 308 Fed.Appx. 364 (11th Cir.2009), we affirmed the district court’s judgment ordering Jamie L. Solow to pay the S.E.C. $3,424,788 in disgorgement. Solow paid only $2,639 of that amount, and the S.E.C. moved the district court for an order to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt. After Solow filed a response to the S.E.C.’s motion, the district court held an evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Solow had not shown a valid excuse for his non-compliance with the disgorgement order and, in fact, had conducted his affairs to avoid compliance. The court therefore held him in civil contempt and ordered him incarcerated until he purges himself of the contempt by paying the amount owed or by satisfactorily demonstrating good faith reasonable efforts to pay it. Solow now appeals the court’s contempt order.

At the show cause hearing, the S.E.C. established a prima facie case of civil contempt, i.e., that Solow actively took steps to create his asserted inability to pay. So-low, in response, testified that, among other things, his only asset is his interest in homestead property held with his wife as tenants by the entirety, and he lacked the ability to coerce the sale of the property. The court found Solow’s testimony not credible and that rather than making in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply with the disgorgement order, Solow had been frustrating compliance. The district court’s credibility finding is well supported in the record. So also are the court’s other findings of relevant fact. We conclude that, on this record, the court acted well within its discretion in adjudging Solow in civil contempt and ordering his incarceration until he purges his contempt in accordance with the court’s directive.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Mesa v. Luis Garcia Land Service, Co.
218 F. Supp. 3d 1375 (S.D. Florida, 2016)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Greenberg
105 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (S.D. Florida, 2015)
Davis v. United States Department of Labor
961 F. Supp. 2d 1 (District of Columbia, 2012)
Davis v. Dol
District of Columbia, 2012
Davis v. United States Department of Labor
844 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D.C. Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
396 F. App'x 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-jamie-l-solow-ca11-2010.