SEC Enforcement Actions Not Subject to Same Reliance Requirements as Private Actions

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Contact

A Connecticut federal district court recently denied a motion for summary judgment by an individual, Gary Richetelli, seeking dismissal of claims brought in an enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC alleged that Richetelli carried out a fraudulent stock purchase scheme in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by providing several New Haven Savings Bank depositors with the financing to obtain shares of newly-issued stock through the bank’s initial public offering (IPO) in exchange for repayment of the loans in full shortly after the IPO, as well as payment of the majority of the profits from the sale of those shares. The terms of the IPO prohibited such arrangements and each of the depositors executed stock order forms in which they declared under oath that they were “purchasing solely for [their] own account, and there is no agreement or understanding regarding the sale or transfer of the shares or the right to subscribe for the shares.”

Please see full publication below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Contact
more
less

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide