Securities & Exchange Commission v. Franklin

Second Circuit

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Franklin

175 F. App'x 467

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 2006

DocketNo. 05-0325-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 175 F. App'x 467 (Securities & Exchange Commission v. Franklin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Franklin, 175 F. App'x 467 (2d Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant James E. Franklin appeals from the order of the District Court filed on August 27, 2004, enjoining defendant from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a), (c), and ordering him to pay certain disgorgement obligations and civil penalties. The District Court’s order referred to its earlier Opinion and Order of July 15, 2004, wherein the District Court set forth the reasons for granting summary judgment against defendant for violation of the registration requirements of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the 1933 Act and the reasons for imposing the remedies adopted in the order of August 27, 2004.

On appeal, defendant argues, inter alia, that he was exempt from the requirements of Section 5 and that the injunctive remedy exceeded the District Court’s discretion.

We have considered all of defendant’s arguments and, substantially for the reasons stated in our opinion filed today in SEC v. Cavanagh, No. 04-5402-cv—which was argued in tandem with this case and which raised substantially similar issues on appeal—-we find each of defendant’s arguments to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant James E. Franklin appeals from the order of the District Court filed on August 27, 2004, enjoining defendant from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a), (c), and ordering him to pay certain disgorgement obligations and civil penalties. The District Court’s order referred to its earlier Opinion and Order of July 15, 2004, wherein the District Court set forth the reasons for granting summary judgment against defendant for violation of the registration requirements of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the 1933 Act and the reasons for imposing the remedies adopted in the order of August 27, 2004.

On appeal, defendant argues, inter alia, that he was exempt from the requirements of Section 5 and that the injunctive remedy exceeded the District Court’s discretion.

We have considered all of defendant’s arguments and, substantially for the reasons stated in our opinion filed today in SEC v. Cavanagh, No. 04-5402-cv—which was argued in tandem with this case and which raised substantially similar issues on appeal—-we find each of defendant’s arguments to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. App'x 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-exchange-commission-v-franklin-ca2-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack