Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cayman Islands Reinsurance Corp.

Second Circuit

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cayman Islands Reinsurance Corp.

734 F.2d 118, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22669

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided May 8, 1984·No. No. 1041, Dockets 83-6277, 83-6287·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appeal and cross-appeal have been taken from certain of Judge Conner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law reported at SEC v. Scott, 565 F.Supp. 1513 (S.D.N.Y.1983).

Judge Conner’s finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that Dirks would commit future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws is not clearly erroneous. Given that finding, his refusal to enjoin Dirks from committing such violations was entirely proper. See SEC v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 99-100 (2d Cir.1978). The judgment on the appeal is therefore affirmed.

Since the findings of fact underlying Judge Conner’s conclusion that Dirks violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, are also not clearly erroneous, the judgment on the cross-appeal is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appeal and cross-appeal have been taken from certain of Judge Conner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law reported at SEC v. Scott, 565 F.Supp. 1513 (S.D.N.Y.1983).

Judge Conner’s finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that Dirks would commit future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws is not clearly erroneous. Given that finding, his refusal to enjoin Dirks from committing such violations was entirely proper. See SEC v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 99-100 (2d Cir.1978). The judgment on the appeal is therefore affirmed.

Since the findings of fact underlying Judge Conner’s conclusion that Dirks violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, are also not clearly erroneous, the judgment on the cross-appeal is affirmed.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cayman Islands Reinsurance Corp., 734 F.2d 118, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22669 (2d Cir. 1984).

Pincite

734 F.2d 118 (Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cayman Islands Reinsurance Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related