Wright v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 186.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 186.,186. |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Milton I. Hauser, of New York City (Garey, Desvernine & Garey, Isidor J. Kresel, Eugene L. Garey, and A. J. Nydick, all of New York City, on the brief), for petitioner.
Homer Kripke, Asst. Sol., of Philadelphia, Pa. (John F. Davis, Sol., Orrin C. Knudsen, Counsel, Trading and Exchange Division, and Joseph B. Levin, all of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for respondent.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
When this case was before us previously, Wright v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 89, we held that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding that petitioner had manipulated the market in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, § 9(a) (2), 15 U.S.C.A. § 78i(a) (2), but that there was no such evidence to support a finding that he had matched orders to create a false appearance of active trading in a security, in violation of § 9(a) (1), 15 U.S.C.A. § 78i(a) (1). A majority of the court held that we lacked power to supervise the discretionary determination of the Commission that expulsion of petitioner from the securities exchanges of which he was a member was necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors, § 19(a) (3), 15 U.S.C.A. § 78s(a) (3); but we returned the case to the Commission to allow it to determine whether its order was too harsh, in view of the ruling that only a single statute had been violated. Thereafter the Commission held a further hearing and filed with its order again expelling petitioner from the exchanges an opinion reciting at some length its reasons for believing that his expulsion for violation of § 9(a) (2) of the Act was both necessary and appropriate for the investors' protection. In summary it found that he "was thoroughly familiar with the nature of his acts and the prohibitions of the statute, had assumed a leading role in the manipulative scheme, and committed gross breaches of fiduciary relationship in the course of executing the scheme." Securities Exchange Act 1934 Release No. 3308, Sept. 17, 1942. In view of our previous ruling, we see no occasion now to upset this exercise of the Commission's discretionary power. See, also, Archer v. S. E. C., 8 Cir., Feb. 15, 1943, 133 F.2d 795, 803.
Petitioner has made further claims of unconstitutionality of the Act, but we think our previous discussion covers this issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Lipper Corp. v. S.E.C.
...determination of expulsion, In the Matter of Charles C. Wright, 12 SEC 100 (1942), and this was upheld on further review, Wright v. SEC, 134 F.2d 733 (2 Cir. 1943).10 Courts in other circuits similarly have reviewed SEC sanctions on an abuse of discretion or arbitrary or capricious standard......
-
Charles Hughes & Co. v. Securities and Exchange Com'n
...Securities Exchange Act of 1934, § 25 (a), 15 U.S.C.A. § 78y(a); Wright v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 89; Id., 2 Cir., 134 F.2d 733. Petitioner challenges the order on three grounds: (1) that § 15(c) (1) of the Securities Exchange Act is unconstitutional because of......
-
Distilled Brands v. Dunigan
...for violations of the act are primarily the responsibility of the Division, and it did not abuse its discretion here. Wright v. S. E. C., 2 Cir., 134 F.2d 733. Similarly, the Director of the Division was correct in concluding that petitioner had failed to show that the new evidence which it......
-
Blair v. Durham
......Bank of Commerce & Trust Company, 135 Tenn. 398, 186 S.W. 465, 18 A.L.R. 788, relied on by appellants, is not ......