Securities & Exchange Commission v. Nashwinter

E.D. Virginia

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Nashwinter

559 F. Supp. 33, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18890

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia

DecidedMarch 2, 1983

DocketCiv. A. 83-0064-R

StatusPublished

This text of 559 F. Supp. 33 (Securities & Exchange Commission v. Nashwinter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia 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. Nashwinter, 559 F. Supp. 33, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18890 (E.D. Va. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

WARRINER, District Judge.

On 2 February the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint and a consent of defendant to the entry of final judgment of permanent injunction. Plaintiff also tendered a sketch for a final judgment of permanent injunction.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d) the district court shall grant an injunction “upon a proper showing” by the Commission. This “proper showing” is required in a contested case. SEC v. American Realty Trust, 429 F.Supp. 1148 (E.D.Va.), rev’d on other grounds, 586 F.2d 1001 (4th Cir.1977). Although defendant’s consent has been held to waive any error by the Court in finding grounds to warrant an injunction, Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311, 327, 48 S.Ct. 311, 315, 72 L.Ed. 587 (1928), the Court construes § 78u(d) to require a “proper *34 showing” in an uncontested case as well. At the least this requires some verification that a violation has occurred and that a “reasonable likelihood exists that the [wrong] will be repeated.” SEC v. American Realty Trust, 429 F.Supp. at 1175.

Accordingly, plaintiff is GRANTED 20 days from the date of this order within which to show by affidavit, or otherwise, facts proving a violation by defendant of the securities laws and supporting the “reasonable likelihood” of future violations.

And it is so ORDERED.

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

OPINION

WARRINER, District Judge.

On 2 February the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint and a consent of defendant to the entry of final judgment of permanent injunction. Plaintiff also tendered a sketch for a final judgment of permanent injunction.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d) the district court shall grant an injunction “upon a proper showing” by the Commission. This “proper showing” is required in a contested case. SEC v. American Realty Trust, 429 F.Supp. 1148 (E.D.Va.), rev’d on other grounds, 586 F.2d 1001 (4th Cir.1977). Although defendant’s consent has been held to waive any error by the Court in finding grounds to warrant an injunction, Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311, 327, 48 S.Ct. 311, 315, 72 L.Ed. 587 (1928), the Court construes § 78u(d) to require a “proper *34 showing” in an uncontested case as well. At the least this requires some verification that a violation has occurred and that a “reasonable likelihood exists that the [wrong] will be repeated.” SEC v. American Realty Trust, 429 F.Supp. at 1175.

Accordingly, plaintiff is GRANTED 20 days from the date of this order within which to show by affidavit, or otherwise, facts proving a violation by defendant of the securities laws and supporting the “reasonable likelihood” of future violations.

And it is so ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 F. Supp. 33, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-exchange-commission-v-nashwinter-vaed-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack