(Total Views: 229)
Posted On: 04/25/2019 10:03:53 AM
Post# of 98226
$ CYIO $ >>> Update from most recent SEC filing from ALJ.
"Respondents move to dismiss the charge under Section 105(c)(7)(
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act based on the argument that it was previously dismissed.31Given Respondents’ pro se status, I construe this argument to encompass the previously dismissed Securities Act Section 17(a)(2)chargeas well. If this proceeding were in federal court, Respondents would likely prevail. Under Supreme Court precedent,anappelleemust file a cross-appeal in order to “enlarg[e]his own rights” or “lessen[]the rights of” anappellant.32In federal court, therefore, the Division’s failure to seek review of the initial decision would foreclose any argument on remand that the Sarbanes-Oxley Section 105(c)(7)(B)and Securities Act Section 17(a)(2)chargesarestill at issue.33"
"Respondents move to dismiss the charge under Section 105(c)(7)(
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act based on the argument that it was previously dismissed.31Given Respondents’ pro se status, I construe this argument to encompass the previously dismissed Securities Act Section 17(a)(2)chargeas well. If this proceeding were in federal court, Respondents would likely prevail. Under Supreme Court precedent,anappelleemust file a cross-appeal in order to “enlarg[e]his own rights” or “lessen[]the rights of” anappellant.32In federal court, therefore, the Division’s failure to seek review of the initial decision would foreclose any argument on remand that the Sarbanes-Oxley Section 105(c)(7)(B)and Securities Act Section 17(a)(2)chargesarestill at issue.33" 
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
