Search Our Blog
Respondent In SEC Administrative Proceeding Pushes Recent Adverse Ruling Against SEC In The Hill Case
By Jeffrey T. Petersen, Esq. and Dennis A. Stubblefield, Esq. of Shustak Reynolds & Partners, P.C. posted on Thursday, June 25, 2015.
James J. Reynolds
Partner
We wrote last week about a recent ruling by a Northern District of Georgia Judge in the case Hill v. SEC that granted a preliminary injunction halting the use of an Administrative Proceeding in an enforcement action against Hill. The Hill court’s reasoning was that the SEC’s Administrative Law Judge was not properly appointed, as such ALJ’s must be appointed by a department head, the President or the courts rather than lower-level SEC personnel. This is the first win in the slew of challenges this year to the constitutionality of these Administrative Proceedings. See our post from June 19, 2015.
And, as expected, it did not take long for the lawyers in the other cases challenging these Proceedings to notice. On June 10, 2015, the plaintiff in Duka v. SEC submitted the court’s opinion in Hill to the judge in its case, arguing that the invalid appointment of the SEC’s Administrative Law Judge is grounds for granting a temporary restraining order against use of the Proceeding. Duka has requested that the court issue such an order at the parties’ next conference on June 17th. We will update this post if any conclusive ruling comes at that time.
Jeffrey T. Petersen, Esq. of Shustak Reynolds & Partners, P.C., with offices in California and New York, focuses on financial services law and represents broker dealers, investment advisers, registered representatives and high net worth investors. Jeff can be reached in San Diego at 619.696.9500. Dennis A. Stubblefield, a partner with the firm who specializes in representing clients in SEC and FINRA enforcement proceedings, can be reached in Irvine at 949.451.6800. Contact our firm today for a confidential analysis of your situation.
