• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
6 results

John Doe, Petitioner v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Docket 22-963, Supreme Court of the United States (Apr. 4, 2023)
Petitioner John Doe
Respondent Securities and Exchange Commission
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Waiver of right of respondent Securities - Main Document

Document John Doe, Petitioner v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 22-963, Waiver of right of respondent Securities, Main Document (U.S. May. 1, 2023)
The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Petition for a writ of certiorari filed - Petition

Document John Doe, Petitioner v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 22-963, Petition for a writ of certiorari filed, Petition (U.S. Mar. 29, 2023)
While the SEC found that Petitioner had provided information that assisted SEC staff, it nonetheless found him ineligible due to his conviction for a criminal violation that was related to the SEC’s enforcement action.
Further, the SEC employed none of the well-established canons of statutory interpretation, including the Surplusage Canon.
Chief among them is that none of the facts contained in Petitioner’s charging instruments appear in Company-1’s and vice versa.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Petition for a writ of certiorari filed - Proof of Service

Document John Doe, Petitioner v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 22-963, Petition for a writ of certiorari filed, Proof of Service (U.S. Mar. 29, 2023)
On this 29th day of March, 2023, I, Anthony G. Lantagne, hereby certify that this Petition for Writ of Certiorari was sent this same day FedEx 2nd Day Air to the Supreme Court of the United States.
I further certify that I have served this same date the required copies via USPS First Class Mail and email to the counsel of record listed below: Elizabeth B. Prelogar Solicitor General ofthe United States Room 5616 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 supremectbriefs@usdoj .gov I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 29th day of March, 2023. ,
) ) to-wit: Anthony G. Lantagne appeared before me th11i§.S~ffi::-G6~ attested that the foregoing affidavit is .
e and and belief.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Petition for a writ of certiorari filed - Certificate of Word Count

Document John Doe, Petitioner v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 22-963, Petition for a writ of certiorari filed, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Mar. 29, 2023)
I, Anthony G. Lantagne, hereby certify that the above referenced Petition for Writ of Certiorari, as indicated by the word count feature of MS Word and including footnotes but excluding those parts enumerated for exclusion under the rules, contains 5,451 words.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 29th day of March, 2023.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Petition for a writ of certiorari filed - Appendix

Document John Doe, Petitioner v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 22-963, Petition for a writ of certiorari filed, Appendix (U.S. Mar. 29, 2023)
Doe challenges the SEC's interpretation of two key terms in 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(2)(B): “convicted” and “related to.” He argues that he was not “convicted” and that his criminal conduct was not “related to” the bribery scheme at issue in the Covered and Related Actions.
Instead, the SEC simply noted its longstanding interpretation of the term “convicted” as it addressed Doe's argument that his conviction was not “related to” the Covered and Related Actions.
Doe pleaded guilty to facilitating bribery payments that came from the same principal briber, targeted government officials in the same country, and sought benefits in the same industry as the scheme charged in the Covered and Related Actions.
Additionally, Claimant 1's information was derived from multiple sources that were not readily identified and accessed by members of the public without specialized knowledge, unusual effort, or substantial cost.
In determining the amount of the awards to Claimant 1, we considered the following factors set forth in Exchange Act Rule 21F-6 as they apply to the facts and circumstances of Claimant 1's application: (1) the significance of information; (2) the assistance provided; (3) the law enforcement interest in deterring violations by granting awards; (4) participation in internal compliance systems; (5) culpability; (6) unreasonable reporting delay; and (7) interference with internal compliance and reporting systems.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search