S.E.C. v. Knopfler, 1581

• Decision Date: 26 August 1981
• Docket Number: D,No. 1581,1581
• Parties: Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,273 In the Matter of An Application To Enforce Administrative Subpoenas Duces Tecum Of the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Applicant-Appellee, v. Hersh KNOPFLER, Tibor Loffler, Anita Maurizio a/k/a A. Elizabeth Cassotta, Rabbi Kalman Pinter, Benjamin G. Sprecher, Respondents, Hersh Knopfler, Congregation Or Lashumaim, Rabbi Kalman Pinter, Benjamin G. Sprecher, Respondents-Appellants. ocket 81-6097.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 25

658 F.2d 25

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,273

In the Matter of An Application To Enforce Administrative

Subpoenas Duces Tecum Of the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Applicant-Appellee, v. Hersh KNOPFLER, Tibor Loffler, Anita Maurizio a/k/a A.

Elizabeth Cassotta, Rabbi Kalman Pinter, Benjamin

G. Sprecher, Respondents,

Hersh Knopfler, Congregation Or Lashumaim, Rabbi Kalman

Pinter, Benjamin G. Sprecher, Respondents-Appellants.

No. 1581, Docket 81-6097.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued June 12, 1981.

Judgment July 24, 1981.

Opinion Aug. 26, 1981.

Stephen Hochberg, New York City, for respondent-appellant Knopfler.

Solomon Rosengarten, New York City, for respondents-appellants Pinter and Congregation Or Lashumaim.

Benjamin G. Sprecher, New York City, pro se.

Michael K. Wolensky, Associate Gen. Counsel, S. E. C., Washington, D. C. (Linda D. Fienberg, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Douglas J. Scheidt, Atty., Washington, D. C., of counsel), for applicant-appellee.

Before OAKES and KEARSE, Circuit Judges, and RE, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade. ^*

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Hersh Knopfler, Congregation Or Lashumaim, Rabbi Kalman Pinter, and Benjamin G. Sprecher appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Lee P. Gagliardi, Judge, granting enforcement of subpoenas duces tecum issued to them by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") in connection with its investigation of possible manipulative practices in the trading of the securities of American Technical Resources, Inc. Finding no merit in any of appellants' contentions, we affirm the order of the district court.

The Commission has the power, in its discretion, to make such investigation as it deems necessary to determine whether any person has violated federal securities laws. E. g., 15 U.S.C. § 78u(a) (1976). For the purpose of such an investigation the Commission may subpoena witnesses and require the production of such books and papers as it deems relevant or material to the inquiry. Id. § 78u(b). In the case of a refusal to obey a subpoena, the Commission generally may seek enforcement in a federal court in any of a number of jurisdictions, including the jurisdiction in which the investigation is pending. Id. § 78u(c).

In the enforcement proceeding below, appellants did not contend that the statutory requirements for issuance of the subpoenas had not been met, but rather opposed enforcement on the principal ground that the Commission's investigator had caused the subpoenas to be issued for purposes of religious harassment. After receiving appellants' opposing papers and hearing oral argument, the district court found that the opposition to the Commission's application was frivolous, without merit, and interposed solely for delay. The court therefore entered the order granting enforcement. On this appeal appellants contend principally that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the claim of religious harassment. After reviewing appellants' assertions, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold such a hearing.

Commission enforcement proceedings may be summary in nature, see SEC v. First Security Bank of Utah, 447 F.2d 166, 168 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1038, 92 S.Ct. 710, 30 L.Ed.2d 729 (1972); cf. ...