DC Circuit Vacates Brokers SEC Punishments, But Not Liability
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the SEC's finding that a broker violated securities laws, but remanded the case to the agency for reconsideration of the penalties.
September 29, 2017 at 03:10 PM
5 minute read
The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., vacated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's lifetime ban for an investment broker Friday, but to a dissenting judge's disappointment, did not completely clear him of liability.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that Francis Lorenzo, whose boss ordered him to send emails to investors that contained misleading information, did not technically “make” false statements about an investment by sending the emails. However, the opinion written by Judge Sri Srinivasan said Lorenzo still played an “active role in perpetrating the fraud.”
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who dissented from the ruling by Srinivasan and Judge Thomas Griffith, wrote the majority's opinion amounted to “legal jujitsu.”
“The majority opinion emphatically holds that Lorenzo did not 'make' the statements in the emails,” Kavanaugh wrote. “At the same time, however, the majority opinion emphatically holds that Lorenzo nonetheless willfully engaged in a scheme to defraud solely because of the statements made by his boss. That combined holding makes little sense (at least to me) under the facts of this particular case.”
Lorenzo's attorney said the ruling was still a win for his client. That's because the court vacated the SEC's punishments, which included a lifetime ban from the industry and a $15,000 fine, and remanded the case to the SEC to reconsider.
“We are very pleased with the appellate court's ruling vacating the SEC's sanctions on Mr. Lorenzo,” said Meyers & Heim partner Robert Heim. “We are hopeful that the SEC will follow the reasoning of the dissent and dismiss this case outright at this stage.”
SEC spokesman Ryan White declined to comment. The remand process at the SEC usually takes between one and two months.
In 2013, the SEC charged Lorenzo, his boss, Gregg Lorenzo (no relation to the plaintiff) and their investment firm, Charles Vista, with violations of three securities-fraud provisions under the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act. The SEC accused the brokers of lying to investors about a clean-energy company value, citing the emails Gregg Lorenzo instructed Francis Lorenzo to send.
Gregg Lorenzo and the firm settled with the SEC, but Francis Lorenzo challenged the charges. After an in-house trial, an administrative law judge ruled Lorenzo recklessly sent the false emails. The full commission sustained the ALJ's decision on appeal. The SEC ruled Lorenzo “knew each of [the emails' key statements] was false and/or misleading when he sent them.”
In the opinion Friday, the court agreed Lorenzo committed two of the three violations the SEC charged him with, including “employ[ing] any device, scheme or artifice to defraud” when selling a security and “us[ing] or employ[ing] … any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in violation of the SEC's rules.
“Lorenzo, acting with scienter (i.e., an intent to deceive or defraud, or extreme recklessness to that effect), produced email messages containing three false statements about a pending offering, sent the messages directly to potential investors, and encouraged them to contact him personally with any questions,” the opinion said.
The court vacated the third charge, that Lorenzo “made” false statements, under the Supreme Court's 2011 Janus opinion. That decision said only those with authority over a statement, including its content and when and how it's disseminated, can be considered the “maker” of the statement. Because Lorenzo sent the email on instruction from his boss, and copy and pasted the contents from his boss's email, he could not be the “maker,” the court said.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, argued that making false statements was central to the entire case against Lorenzo, so if he had not done that, he could not be liable. Kavanaugh wrote the administrative law judge's factual findings were “favorable” to Lorenzo, that the judge's decision at that level “contraven[ed] basic due process,” and that on appeal, the SEC should have dismissed the case.
Kavanaugh wrote that instead, the commission pulled a “Houdini-like move” and found Lorenzo had willfully sent the emails and was responsible for their contents. The judge bemoaned his colleagues' deference to the SEC's conclusions on liability.
“The good news is that the majority opinion vacates the lifetime suspension,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The bad news is that the majority opinion—invoking a standard of deference that, as applied here, seems akin to a standard of 'hold your nose to avoid the stink'—upholds much of the SEC's decision on liability.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRejecting 'Blind Adherence to Outdated Precedent,’ US Judge Goes His Own Way on Attorney Fees
Crypto Entrepreneur Claims Justice Department’s Software Crackdown Violates US Constitution
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Eleven Attorneys General Say No to 'Unconstitutional' Hijacking of State, Local Law Enforcement
- 2Optimizing Legal Services: The Shift Toward Digital Document Centers
- 3Charlie Javice Fraud Trial Delayed as Judge Denies Motion to Sever
- 4Holland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
- 5With DEI Rollbacks, Employment Attorneys See Potential for Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250