Atlanta-One, Inc. Kevin M. McCarthy Thom Blodgett v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Good Law
100 F.3d 105·96 Daily Journal DAR 13620·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19817·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8187
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 12, 199695-70360California2,185 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

ORDER

The Memorandum disposition filed August 1, 1996, is redesignated as an authored Opinion by Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judge.

OPINION

OVERVIEW

This is a petition for review of a Securities and Exchange Commission Decision holding that Petitioners Atlanta-One, Kevin McCarthy, and Thom Blodgett violated rules of fair practice by charging customers unfair commissions. Petitioners argue: 1) there is not substantial evidence to support the SEC’s finding that Atlanta-One charged excessive commissions; 2) that they were denied due process; 3) that the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and the SEC are attempting to “fix” the maximum rate of commission charged by a broker; and 4) that the SEC abused its discretion in affirming the sanctions against Petitioners. We deny the petition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The findings of the SEC as to the facts are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(4). If the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, this court must uphold the SEC’s findings. Eichler v. Securities Exch. Comm’n, 757 F.2d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir.1985). Sanctions imposed by the SEC are reviewed for an abuse of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.