Elliott v. S.E.C., 92-3254
| Decision Date | 18 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-3254,92-3254 |
| Citation | 36 F.3d 86 |
| Parties | Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,497 Charles Phillip ELLIOTT, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Charles Phillip Elliott, pro se.
William F. Johnson, Office of Gen. Counsel, Jacob H. Stillman, Brian D. Bellardo, S.E.C., Washington, DC, for respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) barred Petitioner Charles Phillip Elliott from associating with any securities broker or dealer. Elliott now brings an appeal to this court under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78y(a)(1). We affirm.
The SEC may bar a person from associating with securities brokers or dealers if, inter alia, the person has been enjoined from activities involving the purchase or sale of securities or has been convicted within the past 10 years of certain enumerated crimes including mail or securities fraud, if the SEC finds that such a bar would be in the public interest. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78 o(b)(6)(A)(ii) & (iii). Elliott had operated and controlled several closely related financial services businesses in the 1980s. After an investigation, the SEC sued Elliott in federal court for injunctive relief in 1987, alleging violations of various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Elliott, without admitting guilt, consented to the entry of an injunction barring further securities law violation; he also consented to the appointment of a receiver to take control of his companies and distribute assets to investors. Three years later, Elliott was convicted of 37 counts of mail and securities fraud, based principally on the conduct alleged in the SEC's earlier complaint for injunctive relief. The SEC then filed the current action to bar Elliott from associating with any securities broker or dealer.
After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge determined that Elliott's conviction and the injunction provided adequate grounds for imposition of the bar. The SEC reviewed the matter de novo and affirmed. Elliott now raises a number of issues on appeal. We will uphold the SEC's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78y(a)(4).
Elliott first claims that his conviction was invalid. However, he has an avenue for challenging his conviction in a direct criminal appeal, which is currently pending. It is beyond question that he is within the category of those who may be barred; he has been convicted of specified offenses within the past 10 years. Nothing in the statute's language prevents a bar to be entered if a criminal conviction is on appeal. We will not entertain the collateral attack on the criminal conviction.
Elliott's attack on the injunction as support for the bar also must fail. Under the statutory language, existence of the injunction provides a ground for the bar adequate in itself and independent from the criminal conviction. The fact that Elliott consented to the injunction without admitting guilt does not prevent the use of the injunction as support for the bar. His complaint that the receiver took control of his assets without a prior hearing ignores the fact that he consented to the appointment of the receiver.
We also must reject arguments by Elliott that the SEC erred in finding that a bar would be in the public interest. He has been convicted of serious violations of the securities laws; this in itself is sufficient to support the SEC's conclusion.
Elliott's complaint that the SEC improperly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevenson v. Willis, No. 3:07CV3743.
...Cir.1988). Accord, Hostetler v. City of Perrysburg, 998 F.Supp. 820, 823 (N.D.Ohio, 1998) (dictum) (Carr, J.); see also Elliott v. SEC, 36 F.3d 86, 87 (11th Cir.1994) ("An agency may combine investigative, adversarial, and adjudicative functions, as long as no employees serve in dual roles.......
-
Seghers v. S.E.C.
...defrauded investors by significantly overstating the values of the hedge funds for several months. Id. at 12-13; see Elliott v. SEC, 36 F.3d 86, 87 (11th Cir.1994) (finding conviction of serious violations of securities laws sufficient in itself to support SEC's conclusion that permanent ba......
-
City of Huber Heights v. Lucas Liakos
...or agency review pursuant to section 557 of this title, except as witness or counsel in public proceedings. See also Elliot v. SEC (C.A.11 1994), 36 F.3d 86; Greenberg et al. v. The Board of Governors of the Reserve System (C.A.2 1992), 968 F.2d 164. Courts in Ohio have also drawn the disti......
-
Siris v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
...640 F.3d 373, 384 (D.C.Cir.2011) ; see also SEC v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 752 F.3d 285, 295 (2d Cir.2014) ; Elliott v. SEC, 36 F.3d 86, 87 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam). It was also permissible for the Commission to reject Siris' purported mitigation evidence that, in reality, constit......
-
Securities Regulation - John L. Latham and Jay E. Sloman
...31 F.3d at 1065. 136. Id. (citing In re Dan King Brainard, 47 S.E.C. 991 (1983)). 137. 52 S.E.C. 1145 (1992). 138. 31 F.3d at 1066. 139. 36 F.3d 86 (11th Cir. 1994). 140. Id. at 87. The SEC may bar a person from associating with securities, brokers or dealers if, among other things, the per......
-
Securities Regulation - John L. Latham and Jenna L. Fruechtenict
...thereunder. 17. C.F.R. Sec. 201.2(e)(1) (1994). Petitioner contended the rule intimidated attorneys. 45 F.3d at 1518. 321. Id. 322. 36 F.3d 86 (11th Cir. 1994). 323. 45 F.3d at 1519 (quoting Elliot, 36 F.3d at 87). 324. Id. at 1519. 325. 117 S. Ct. 759 (1997). 326. 92 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 199......
-
The constitutionality of federal restrictions on the indemnification of attorneys' fees.
...2562 (2006) (rejecting an argument that the demands of due process and the Sixth Amendment are the same). (147) See, e.g., Elliott v. SEC, 36 F.3d 86, 88 (11th Cir. 1994) (denying a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in administrative proceedings); FTC v. World Wide Factors, Ltd., 882 F.2d 34......