SEC v. De Maison

SEC v. De Maison

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Cross Defendant-Appellant Angelique de Maison appeals from a judgment of the district court entered against her following a consent agreement with Plaintiff-Appellee United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). This case returns to us after the Supreme Court vacated our judgment affirming the district court's prior order, SEC v. de Maison, 785 F. App'x 3 (2d Cir. 2019), and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Liu v. SEC, 140 S. Ct. 1936, 207 L. Ed. 2d 401 (2020). See de Maison v. SEC, 141 S. Ct. 186, 207 L. Ed. 2d 1113 (2020) (mem.). After we vacated [*2]  the district court's judgment and remanded the case to the district court and the SEC recommended a reduced disgorgement sum, the district court ordered de Maison to disgorge $524,885 and imposed a third-tier civil penalty of $4,240,049.30. SEC v. Cope, No. 14-cv-7575, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31206, 2021 WL 653088, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2021). On appeal, de Maison argues that the district court failed to properly account for her personal net profits in ordering the revised disgorgement award; that the district court abused its discretion in reimposing the initial civil penalty of $4,240,049.30; and that the record warrants reassigning the case to another judge on remand. We otherwise assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

] "[O]nce the district court has found federal securities law violations, it has broad equitable power to fashion appropriate remedies." SEC v. Fowler, 6 F.4th 255, 265 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting SEC v. Sourlis, 851 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2016)). "The court's choice of remedies is reviewed for abuse of discretion." SEC v. Frohling, 851 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). "Under this standard, we will reverse only if we have a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion that it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors." SEC v. Rajaratnam, 918 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting SEC v. Bankosky, 716 F.3d 45, 47 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)). For the following reasons, [*3]  we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in ordering the revised disgorgement award and reimposing the civil penalty and that its order aligned with the principles articulated in Liu.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.