17 C.F.R. § 200.66

Investigations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The power to investigate carries with it the power to defame and destroy. In determining to exercise their investigatory power, members should concern themselves only with the facts known to them and the reasonable inferences from those facts. A member should never suggest, vote for, or participate in an investigation aimed at a particular individual for reasons of animus, prejudice or vindictiveness. The requirements of the particular case alone should induce the exercise of the investigatory power, and no public pronouncement of the pendency of such an investigation should be made in the absence of reasonable evidence that the law has been violated and that the public welfare demand it.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: Guy Gentile v. SEC, 974 F.3d 311 (3rd Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Guy Gentile v. SEC, 974 F.3d 311 (3rd Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “Gentile attempts to avoid this outcome by limiting his challenges to two components of the SEC’s investigation: its nexus to him and its allegedly retributive motive.”

Dean L. Buntrock v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 347 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2003). “See 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.66 , .69, .735-2, 3(a)(2)(iii), (b)(8).”

Ayers v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 482 F. Supp. 747 (D. Mont. 1980). · cites it 3× “” 17 C.F.R. § 200.66 . The review in this case, like the review in Standard Oil, cannot extend to an intrusion by the court into the agency function of whether the requirements of this particular case should induce the exercise of SEC investigatory power.”

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Caledonian Bank Ltd., 145 F. Supp. 3d 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “” 17 C.F.R. § 200.66 . Judges rely on the SEC to deploy those powers conscientiously and provide accurate assessments regarding the evidence collected in their investigations.”

Treats Int'l Enter., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 828 F. Supp. 16 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “17 C.F.R. § 200.66 . That general and exhortatory language does little to limit the discretion of the SEC in determining to investigate a particular case; it requires that its discretion be exercised on the facts and in good faith.”

Buntrock, Dean L. v. SEC (7th Cir. 2003). “See 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.66 , .69, .735-2, 3(a)(2)(iii), (b)(8).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.