Blaise D'Antoni & Associates, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission
| Decision Date | 12 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 18416.,18416. |
| Citation | 290 F.2d 688 |
| Parties | BLAISE D'ANTONI & ASSOCIATES, INC. and Blaise D'Antoni, Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Eberhard P. Deutsch, Bernard Marcus, Julian H. Good, New Orleans, La., for petitioners.
Thomas G. Meeker, Gen. Counsel, S. E.C., David Ferber, John A. Dudley, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before RIVES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, Jr., District Judge.
In the original opinion in this case, this Court approved the Securities and Exchange Commission's (1) refusal to allow Mr. Blaise D'Antoni to withdraw voluntarily his application for registration with the Commission as a broker-dealer and (2) refusal to allow D'Antoni & Associates, Inc., to withdraw voluntarily its registration as a broker-dealer.
(1) On rehearing, Mr. D'Antoni points to Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S. C.A. § 78o prohibiting an applicant from engaging in the business of a broker and dealer in over-the-counter securities until his registration becomes effective, and argues that Section 15(a) is an adequate safeguard of the public interest. Petitioner distinguishes the applicant for registration as a broker-dealer from the applicant for registration of securities, since the latter is allowed to make offers, but not sales, while the application is pending. Section 15(a) is a protection, when a broker-dealer applies for registration, that does not exist when an issue of securities is registered. Nevertheless, Section 15(a), alone and isolated, was not intended as the only safeguard of the public interest. Section 15(a) does not stand alone; it is integrally linked with Section 15(b) of the Act, and together they form part of the regulatory scheme for the long-range protection of investors. See Peoples Securities Co. et al. v. S. E. C., 5 Cir., 1961, 289 F.2d 268. When Mr. D'Antoni filed his application for registration, he placed himself under the Commission's "scrutiny". The withdrawal of an ungranted application for registration as a broker-dealer may affect the public interest as well as the grant of an application. Cf. Columbia General Investment Corp. v. S. E. C., 5 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 559. By attaching important consequences, vitally affecting the applicant and his future status, to the revelation of improper activities on the applicant's part, Congress indicated that an applicant subjects himself to the Commission's scrutiny from the moment he files his application for registration. He cannot escape those consequences by withdrawing in the face of an S.E.C. investigation. All the sanctions enumerated in Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re S.W. Bach & Company
...and violations going forward as well as guards against ongoing injury by those engaging in misconduct. Blaise D'Antoni & Assocs., Inc. v. S.E.C., 290 F.2d 688, 689 (5th Cir.1961) (no absolute right to withdraw application for registration). Specifically, under 15 U.S.C. § 78 o(b)(8), “[i]t ......
-
Fontaine v. Securities and Exchange Commission
...Peoples Securities Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (5 Cir., 1961) 289 F.2d 268; Blaise D'Antoni and Assoc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (5 Cir., 1961) 290 F.2d 688; cf. Columbia General Investment Corp. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (5 Cir., 1959) 265 F.2d In G......
-
George K. Baum Advisors, L.L.C. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
...of the Act, and together they form part of the regulatory scheme for the long-range protection of investors." Blaise D'Antoni & Assoc. v. SEC, 290 F.2d 688, 689 (5th Cir. 1961). See also Eastside Church of Christ v. National Plan, Inc., 391 F.2d 357, 362 (5th Cir.) (the requirement of broke......
-
Ridgway, McLeod and Associates, In re
...423 F.2d 813, 816 (10 Cir. 1970); Blaise D'Antoni & Associates, Inc. v. Securities & Exch. Comm., 289 F.2d 276, 277 (5 Cir.), aff'd 290 F.2d 688 (5 Cir.), cert. den. 368 U.S. 899, 82 S.Ct. 178, 7 L.Ed.2d 95 The appellant's interpretation of the regulation would render it meaningless. That i......