Securities & Exchange Commission v. Gerald Levine
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
This is an appeal from a motion for summary judgment; the facts are not repeated as the parties are familiar with them. We affirm.
The Levines waived the argument that their fraudulent conduct outside the United States is not covered by the securities laws, as the Levines never brought this argument before the district court such that the district court could rule on it. Abogados v. AT&T, Inc., 223 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir.2000). Even were this argument not waived, the Securities Act governs the Levines’ sales because the actual sales closed in Nevada when Marie Levine received completed stock purchase agreements and payments. Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2869 , 177 L.Ed.2d 535 (2010).
No reasonable jury could find otherwise than that Gerald Levine was directly and personally involved in the material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sales of securities occurring in the Barcelona boiler room. See In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 383 (9th Cir.2010). Similarly, there is no evidence to contradict that Marie Levine consummated the sales initiated in the Barcelona boiler room and that she failed to make…