17 C.F.R. § 201.410

Appeal of initial decisions by hearing officers

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

(a) Petition for review; when available. In any proceeding in which an initial decision is made by a hearing officer, any party, and any other person who would have been entitled to judicial review of the decision entered therein if the Commission itself had made the decision, may file a petition for review of the decision with the Commission.

(b) Procedure. The petition for review of an initial decision shall be filed with the Commission within such time after service of the initial decision as prescribed by the hearing officer pursuant to § 201.360(b) unless a party has filed a motion to correct an initial decision with the hearing officer. If such correction has been sought, a party shall have 21 days from the date of the hearing officer's order resolving the motion to correct to file a petition for review. The petition shall set forth a statement of the issues presented for review under § 201.411(b). In the event a petition for review is filed, any other party to the proceeding may file a cross-petition for review within the original time allowed for seeking review or within ten days from the date that the petition for review was filed, whichever is later.

(c) Length limitation. Except with leave of the Commission, the petition for review shall not exceed three pages in length. Incorporation of pleadings or filings by reference into the petition is not permitted. Motions to file petitions in excess of those limitations are disfavored.

(d) Financial disclosure statement requirement. Any person who files a petition for review of an initial decision that asserts that person's inability to pay either disgorgement, interest or a penalty shall file with the opening brief a sworn financial disclosure statement containing the information specified in § 201.630(b).

(e) Prerequisite to judicial review. Pursuant to Section 704 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 704, a petition to the Commission for review of an initial decision is a prerequisite to the seeking of judicial review of a final order entered pursuant to such decision.

[60 FR 32796, June 23, 1995, as amended at 69 FR 13179, Mar. 19, 2004; 81 FR 50240, July 29, 2016]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 2003–2020 · leading case: The Robare Group, LTD. v. SEC

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The Robare Group, LTD. v. SEC (2019) cadc “§ 78d-1 ; 17 C.F.R. § 201.410 (a). Upon de novo review, the Commission conducted an "independent review of the record," Decision at 2, and concluded that Mark Robare and TRG, "as investment advisers with fiduciary obligations to their clients, failed adequately to disclose…”

National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission (2005) cadc “§ 78d — 1(b); see also Commission Rules of Practice 410 & 411, 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.410 , 201.411. In both disciplinary systems, once the Commission takes final action, Congress has provided for judicial review of the Commission’s action under § 25(a) of the Act, which enables “[a]…”

Hill v. Securities & Exchange Commission (2015) gand “17 C.F.R. § 201.410 , or the SEC can review the matter “on its own initiative.”

Bombardier, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor (2015) dcd · cites it 2× “(citing 17 C.F.R. § 201.410 (a)); 17 C.F.R. § 201.”

Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Commission (2015) gand “The initial decision can be appealed by either the respondent or the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, 17 C.F.R. § 201.410 , or the- SEC can review the matter “on its own initiative.”

Gray Financial Group, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission (2015) gand “The initial decision can be appealed by either the respondent or the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, 17 C.F.R. § 201.410 , or the SEC can review the matter “on its own initiative.”

Carnahan v. Securities and Exchange Commission (2020) flsd · cites it 2× “” 17 C.F.R. § 201.410 . Moreover, “Section 78y provides only for judicial review of Commission action, and not every Board action is encapsulated in a final Commission order or rule.”

Duka v. U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (2015) nysd “5 17 C.F.R. § 201.410 . Or, *387 the Commission may review an ALJ’s decision “on its own initiative.”

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Cpa Ltd. (2013) dcd · cites it 2× “17 C.F.R. § 201.410 (a). That decision can then be appealed to our Court of Appeals.”

Schlien v. Securities & Exchange Commission (2003) cadc · cites it 2× “Although the petitioners had a constitutional right to withhold the financial disclosure statements required by 17 C.F.R. § 201.410 (c) on the basis of an asserted privilege against self-incrimination, the claim of privilege did not relieve the petitioners of their burden of…”

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.