Lawrence D. Isen Peter Paul Kim v. Securities and Exchange Commission

87 F.3d 1319 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Lawrence D. ISEN; Peter Paul Kim, Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. No. 95-70564. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 6, 1996. * Decided June 26, 1996. Before: WIGGINS, THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 The petitioners, Lawrence D. Isen and Peter Paul Kim, are former stockbrokers who were found to have violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) barred the petitioners from associating with any broker or dealer and ordered them to cease and desist from violating the antifraud provisions of the securities laws. Isen and Kim bring this petition for review contending the evidence in support of the charges was insufficient, the SEC's opinion was too vague for meaningful judicial review,…