Download - SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 1/11
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JOHN B. BULGOZDY, Cal Bar No. 219897E-mail: [email protected] J. VAN HAVERMAAT, Cal. Bar No. 175761E-mail: [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange CommissionRosalind R. Tyson, Regional DirectorMichele Wein Layne, Associate Regional DirectorJohn W. Berry, Regional Trial Counsel5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th FloorLos Angeles, California 90036Telephone: (323) 965-3998Facsimile: (323) 965-3908
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARCO GLISSON,
Defendant
Case No. 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF
PLAINTIFF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GLISSON’S MOTION FOR STAY
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 90 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 9
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 2/11
1
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Marco Glisson’s (“Glisson”) Motion for Stay lacks merit andshould be denied because there is no parallel criminal proceeding that is implicated
by this case. By Glisson’s own admission, the criminal investigation that is the
basis of his motion “is said to focus, not on the broker/dealer activities alleged by
[the Commission] in this case, but on a prior, unrelated tax obligation of Glisson
and his alleged efforts to avoid payment thereof by reducing the visibility of his
assets . . . .” (Defendant Glisson’s Motion for Stay at page 21, lines 11-12
(emphasis added)). By Glisson’s own admission, the criminal investigation
involves Glisson’s prior tax obligations and his efforts to evade payment of his
taxes, and is not a parallel criminal investigation of the same conduct that is the
subject of the Commission’s civil enforcement action for violation of the federal
securities laws. Glisson provides no support for the proposition that a defendant in
a civil action should be able to stay such proceedings, for an indefinite period,
because of an unrelated criminal investigation. To the contrary, the authority cited
by Glisson shows that a stay is not appropriate in this case – even if the criminal
proceedings involved a parallel investigation, and the motion for stay should be
denied.
Earlier in these proceedings, in opposing plaintiff Securities and Exchange
Commission’s (“Commission”) efforts to obtain discovery of Glisson’s 2010
activities in CMKM securities, Glisson informed the Court: “Glisson would like to
go to trial as soon as possible.” (Glisson’s Opposition to Commission’s Renewed
Motion to Further Extend Additional Discovery Period or to Clarify (Docket No.
54), at page 7, lines 23-24.) The Court should honor Glisson’s request to “go to
trial as soon as possible,” and deny the motion for stay.
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 90 Filed 11/30/11 Page 2 of 9
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 3/11
2
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A.
A Defendant in a Civil Action is Not Entitled to a Stay of Discovery Even When Criminal Charges Have Been Filed
The Supreme Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to a stay of civil
litigation merely because criminal charges are pending against him. It is well
established that parallel civil and criminal proceedings can be brought and pursued
against the same defendant “simultaneously or successively.” See Standard Sanitary
Mfg. Co. v. United States, 226 U.S. 20, 52, 33 S. Ct. 9, 16 (1912). “In the absence of
substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, such parallel proceedings
are unobjectionable.” SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1374 (D.C.
Cir. 1980). “The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings
pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. OTS, 45 F.3d 322, 324
(9th Cir. 1995); accord FSLIC v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989).
In Keating, the Ninth Circuit rejected Charles Keating’s argument that
overlapping civil and criminal proceedings entitled him to a stay of the civil
proceedings. In affirming an administrative law judge’s refusal to stay the Office of
Thrift Supervision’s civil case against Keating, the Ninth Circuit ruled that “[a]
defendant has no absolute right not to be forced to choose between testifying in a
civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege. Not only is it permissible
to conduct a civil proceeding at the same time as a related criminal proceeding, even
if that necessitates invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, but it is even
permissible for the trier of fact to draw adverse inferences from the invocation of the
Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding.” Keating, 45 F.3d at 326 (citing Baxter v.
Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 S. Ct. 1551, 1557, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976)).
In FSLIC v. Molinaro, defendant argued that the FBI was investigating the
same activities that caused the FSLIC to file a civil action against him. The Ninth
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 90 Filed 11/30/11 Page 3 of 9
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 4/11
3
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of Molinaro’s motion to stay the civil
proceeding, holding that while “a district court may stay civil proceedings pendingthe outcome of parallel criminal proceedings, such action is not required by the
Constitution” and the decision to stay should be made “in light of the particular
circumstances and competing interests involved in the case.” Molinaro, 889 F.2d
at 902 (citations omitted).
In this case, no indictment has been returned by any state or federal
authorities, which undermines any argument for a stay. Id . at 903 (“case for
staying civil proceedings is ‘a far weaker one’ when ‘[n]o indictment has been
returned [, and] no Fifth Amendment privilege is threatened” (citing Dresser
Indus., 628 F.2d at 1376)). Courts generally decline to stay civil proceedings when
a related criminal matter is still in the investigatory stage. See, e.g., SEC v.
Treadway, No. 04-Civ-3464 WM JCF, 2005 WL 713826, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30,
2005); In re Worldcom, Inc. Sec. Litig., Nos. 02 Civ. 3288, 02 Civ. 4816, 2002 WL
31729501, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002).
B. The Factors to be Considered Militate Against a Stay in This Case
In Keating and Molinaro, the Ninth Circuit identified the factors that
generally should be considered when a stay is requested:
(1) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation or any
particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay;
(2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose
on defendants;
(3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the
efficient use of judicial resources;
(4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and
(5) the interests of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 90 Filed 11/30/11 Page 4 of 9
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 5/11
4
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 903 (citations omitted). As described below, these factors
favor denying Glisson’s motion for a stay.1. A Stay Would Substantially Prejudice the Commission
The Commission has a strong and legally cognizable interest in timely
pursuing civil actions to obtain judgments of permanent injunction against
defendants, obtain orders that ill-gotten gains be disgorged, and seek the
imposition of civil penalties to punish wrongdoers for their violations of the federal
securities laws. See Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 903; FTC v. J.K. Publications, Inc., 99
F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (recognizing government agencies’ strong
interest in avoiding delay in civil enforcement proceedings).
The Commission brought this case in the public interest, to protect investors
from being sold deregistered securities in CMKM. The Commission deregistered
CMKM’s securities in 2005 because CMKM was delinquent in making mandatory
public filings concerning its operations, and the Commission’s order was made to
protect the investing public, the integrity of the markets, and the public interest.
Indeed, Glisson admitted that his existing CMKM holdings became worthless after
the shares were deregistered in 2005. Once CMKM securities were deregistered, all
trading in CMKM was halted on any national exchange, and by any registered
broker or dealer.
Glisson’s conduct in CMKM securities effectively circumvented the
Commission’s efforts to protect the public. Moreover, Glisson renewed his illegal
conduct in 2010 – in direct contravention of a sworn statement he made to the Court
in his successful effort to avoid summary judgment. Glisson lied to this Court that
he would never trade CMKM securities again. Glisson profited substantially from
his duplicity – realizing net proceeds in excess of $1.6 million for a few months of
activity in 2010. At any time, without the Court’s or the Commission’s knowledge,
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 90 Filed 11/30/11 Page 5 of 9
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 6/11
5
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Glisson could resume his illegal activities in CMKM securities to the detriment of
innocent investors who are duped into believing CMKM securities have some value.A stay would prejudice the Commission and the public interest in full
disclosure in the securities markets, and the integrity of the markets.
2. Proceeding With This Action Will Not Impose an Undue
Burden on Defendant Because No Criminal Proceeding is
Pending
As previously noted, “[t]he case for staying civil proceedings is ‘a far
weaker one’ when ‘[n]o indictment has been returned . . .’” Molinaro, 889 F.2d at
903 (citing Dresser , 628 F.2d at 1376 (“‘stays will generally not be granted before
an indictment is issued’”)); SEC v. Brown, No. 06-1213, 2007 WL 4191998 (D.
Minn. Nov. 21, 2007) (finding no basis for stay even though defendant had
received a “target letter” from the U.S. Attorney’s Office).
Thus, courts routinely decline to stay civil proceedings when a related
criminal matter is still in the investigatory stage. See, e.g., SEC v. Treadway, No.
04-CIV-3463 WM JCF, 2005 WL 713826, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2005); In re
Worldcom, Inc. Sec. Litig., Nos. 02 Civ. 3288, 02 Civ. 4816, 2002 WL 31729501,
at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002); SEC v. Sandifur , No. C05-1631C, 2006 WL
1719920 (W.D. Wash. June 19, 2006); SEC v. Rivelli, No. Civ.A 05-CV-1039-
RPM, 2005 WL 2789317 (D. Col. Oct. 26, 2005).
In the absence of an indictment, the Court has no way of knowing what
conduct a hypothetical future indictment might cover if one is ever issued. The U.S.
Attorney’s Office has not intervened to support defendants’ request for a stay. This
uncertainty about whether and when an indictment may or may not issue is why the
Ninth Circuit has held that the case for a stay in such circumstances is “far weaker”
than when there is an actual, pending indictment. Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 903.
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 90 Filed 11/30/11 Page 6 of 9
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 7/11
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 8/11
7
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
investors to wait in limbo for the Commission’s enforcement action to proceed,
based solely on speculation about some future indictment, is contrary to theinterests of these investors. Moreover, since Glisson has shown the ability and
propensity to resume his trafficking of deregistered CMKM securities at will, a
stay is contrary to the interests of investors who may be duped into buying
deregistered CMKM securities through Glisson’s market making activities. The
interests of the non-party investors weigh heavily against the requested stay.
5. The Public Interest Strongly Favors the Timely Prosecution
of This Action
The public interest does not favor a stay. The Commission brought this civil
enforcement action in the public interest. The Commission, which is statutorily
charged with the enforcement of the federal securities laws in the public interest,
has a strong interest in the timely prosecution and resolution of civil enforcement
proceedings. A stay would run counter to the public’s compelling interest in the
fair, efficient, effective, and swift enforcement of the federal securities laws. See
Keating, 45 F.3d at 325 (recognizing public interest favors timely resolution of
civil action and weighs against stay); Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 903 (same). Indeed, in
Keating, the Ninth Circuit held that the public’s interest in “a speedy resolution of
the controversy” outweighed Keating’s asserted interest in avoiding reliance upon
his Fifth Amendment rights, and that the compelling public “concern for efficient
administration would [be] unnecessarily impaired” by the imposition of a stay.
Keating, 45 F.3d at 325.
///
///
///
///
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 90 Filed 11/30/11 Page 8 of 9
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 9/11
8
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion for a stay should bedenied in all respects.
Date: November 30, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John B. Bulgozdy
John B. BulgozdyDavid J. Van HavermaatAttorney for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 90 Filed 11/30/11 Page 9 of 9
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 10/11
9
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is:
[X] U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5670 WilshireBoulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90036-3648Telephone No. (323) 965-3998; Facsimile No. (323) 965-3908.
On November 30, 2011, I caused to be served the document entitled PLAINTIFF
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT GLISSON’S MOTION FOR STAY on all the parties to thisaction addressed as stated on the attached service list:
[ ] OFFICE MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I placed forcollection and mailing today following ordinary business practices. I amreadily familiar with this agency’s practice for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would be deposited withthe U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
[ ] PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealedenvelope(s), which I personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service.Each such envelope was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at LosAngeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid.
[ ] EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in afacility regularly maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of Express Mail at Los Angeles, California, with Express Mail postagepaid.
[ ] HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope tothe office of the addressee as stated on the attached service list.
[ ] UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: By placing in sealed envelope(s)designated by United Parcel Service (“UPS”) with delivery fees paid orprovided for, which I deposited in a facility regularly maintained by UPS ordelivered to a UPS courier, at Los Angeles, California.
[ ] ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mailto the electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list.
[X] E-FILING: By causing the document to be electronically filed via the
Court’s CM/ECF system, which effects electronic service on counsel whoare registered with the CM/ECF system.
[ ] FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. Thetransmission was reported as complete and without error.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: November 30, 2011 /s/ John B. BulgozdyJohn B. Bulgozdy
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 90-1 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 2
8/3/2019 SEC Opp Glisson's Motion for Stay Show_temp
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-opp-glissons-motion-for-stay-showtemp 11/11
10
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SEC v. MARCO GLISSONUnited States District Court - District of Nevada
Case No. 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF(LA-3028)
SERVICE LIST
Frederick A. Santacroce, Esq.706 South Eighth StreetLas Vegas, NV 89101Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Marco Glisson
Robert H. Bretz, Esq.578 Washington Boulevard, Suite 843Marina del Rey, CA 90292Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Marco Glisson
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 90-1 Filed 11/30/11 Page 2 of 2