This page provides links to some of the legal briefs the Commission's staff submitted in various court actions. See also:
SEC Appellate Court Briefs
||SEC v. Francis E. Wilde, et al.: Opposition brief supporting summary judgment against multiple defendants who engaged in an $11 million prime bank scheme in violation of antifraud and various other provisions of the federal securities laws.
||American Petroleum Institute et al. v. SEC: Petition for review challenging rulemaking under Securities Exchange Act Section 13(q) that requires resource extraction issuers to include in an annual report certain information relating to payments made by the issuer to a foreign government or the Federal Government for the purpose of the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.
||Gabelli v. SEC: Opposition brief submitted by the Commission and the Solicitor General's Office in the Supreme Court supporting an appellate court's ruling that the five-year limitations period for a Commission action for civil penalties for alleged violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws begins to run only upon the Commission's actual or constructive discovery of the fraud.
||SEC v. Teo: Opposition brief supporting the jury's verdict that the defendants violated the Exchange Act's antifraud and shareholder reporting provisions by intentionally misrepresenting the extent and purpose of their beneficial ownership of shares, and supporting the order to disgorge profits from selling those shares.
||SEC v. Sierra: Opposition brief supporting summary judgment against Aaron Tsai for violating the registration requirements under Section 5 and the shareholder reporting requirements under Section 13(d) and Section 16(a), where Tsai converted a privately-held shell company into a publicly-held company without registration.
||SEC v. Cuban (Reply): Reply brief on appeal argues that, as a federal question not controlled by state law, agreeing to keep material, nonpublic information confidential gives rise to a duty of disclosure before using the information for personal benefit in trading, and that a fiduciary relationship between the trader and his source is not required. Brief also argues that Commission Rule 10b5-2(b)(1) is a valid interpretation of the deception requirement of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and applies to business relationships.
||SEC v. Cuban: Appeal challenging grant of a motion to dismiss the complaint argues that agreeing to maintain material, nonpublic information in confidence and then making undisclosed securities trades on the information is a "deceptive device or contrivance" within the meaning of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
||SEC v. American Equity Investment Life Ins.: Petition for review challenging rulemaking that defines certain indexed annuities as ineligible for the "annuity contract" exemption in Section 3(a)(8) of the Securities Act of 1933.
||SEC v. Dorozhko (Reply): Reply brief on appeal argues that a breach of fiduciary or similar duty is not an element of every claim brought under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
||SEC v. Dorozhko: Appeal challenging denial of preliminary injunction argues that hacking into a secure computer system in order to obtain material nonpublic information immediately used to trade in securities is a "deceptive device or contrivance" within the meaning of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
||SEC v. Rocklage: Appeal challenging denial of motion to dismiss a complaint alleging insider trading
||Financial Planning Association v. Securities and Exchange Commission: Petition for Review challenging rulemaking relating to certain broker-dealers deemed not to be investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
||Goldstein v. Securities and Exchange Commission: Petition for Review challenging rulemaking relating to registration under the Advisers Act of 1940 of certain hedge fund advisers
||Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Securities and Exchange Commission: Petition for Review challenging amendments to exemptive rules permitting certain transactions under the Investment Company Act of 1940
||Securities and Exchange Commission v. ETS Payphones, Inc.:
Supplemental brief filed after Supreme Court remand argues that “common enterprise” is not a distinct element of an “investment contract,” but that the latter term encompasses any investment in which the promoter or a third party, not the investor, manages and controls the enterprise through which the investor has been led to expect to receive a financial return.|