Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cayman Islands Reinsurance Corp.

Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Cayman Is. Reinsurance Corp., 734 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1984)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1984-05-08
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM: The appeal and cross-appeal have been taken from certain of Judge Conner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law reported at SEC v. Scott, 565 F.Supp. 1513 (S.D.N.Y.1983). Judge Conner’s finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that Dirks would commit future violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws is not clearly erroneous. Given that finding, his refusal to enjoin Dirks from committing such violations was entirely proper. See SEC v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cayman Islands Reinsurance Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
SECURITIES EXCH. v. CAYMAN IS. REINSURANCE,734 F.2d 118(2nd Cir. 1984)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE, v.
CAYMAN ISLANDS REINSURANCE CORP., LTD., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, RAYMOND L.
DIRKS, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT.
No. 1041, Dockets 83-6277, 83-6287.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 13, 1984.
Decided May 8, 1984.
Richard A. Kirby, Asst. Gen. Counsel, S.E.C., Washington, D.C. (Daniel L. Goelzer, Gen. Counsel, Jacob H. Stillman, Associate Gen. Counsel, Gerard S. Citera, Atty., Allyn C. Shepard, Atty., Paul Gonson, Sol., S.E.C., Washington, D.C., on brief), for plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee.

Stanley S. Arkin, New York City (Mark S. Arisohn, Marc Bogatin, Jeffrey M. Kaplan, Suzan Cox, law clerk, Arkin Arisohn, P.C., New York City, on brief), for defendant-appellee-cross-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Before MANSFIELD, WINTER and PRATT, Circuit Judges.Page 119
PER CURIAM:
[1] The appeal and cross-appeal have been taken from certain of Judge Conner's findings of fact and conclusions of law reported atSEC v. Scott,565 F.Supp. 1513 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

[2] Judge Conner's finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that Dirks would commit future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws is not clearly erroneous. Given that finding, his refusal to enjoin Dirks from committing such violations was entirely proper.See SEC v.Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc.,574 F.2d 90, 99-100 (2d Cir. 1978). The judgment on the appeal is therefore affirmed.

[3] Since the findings of fact underlying Judge Conner's conclusion that Dirks violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act,15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, are also not clearly erroneous, the judgment on the cross-appeal is affirmed.