17 C.F.R. § 203.2
Information obtained in investigations and examinations
Information or documents obtained by the Commission in the course of any investigation or examination, unless made a matter of public record, shall be deemed non-public, but the Commission approves the practice whereby officials of the Divisions of Enforcement, Corporation Finance, Market Regulation and Investment Management and the Office of International Affairs at the level of Assistant Director or higher, and officials in Regional Offices at the level of Assistant Regional Director or higher, may engage in and may authorize members of the Commission's staff to engage in discussions with persons identified in § 240.24c-1(b) of this chapter concerning information obtained in individual investigations or examinations, including formal investigations conducted pursuant to Commission order.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2022 · leading case: United States v. Daniel King Brainard, United States of Am. v. Halton Q. Bittick, Jr., 690 F.2d 1117 (4th Cir. 1983).
United States v. Daniel King Brainard, United States of Am. v. Halton Q. Bittick, Jr., 690 F.2d 1117 (4th Cir. 1983). “Bittick argues that the district court erred in refusing to sever Count 19 from the mail fraud counts.”
In Re Subpoenas Duces Tecum. Fulbright & Jaworski, Vinson & Elkins, Tesoro Petroleum Corp., 738 F.2d 1367 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “See 17 C.F.R. §§ 203.2 , 230.122, 240.0-4 (1978).”
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Repub. of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3rd Cir. 1991). “See 17 CFR §§ 203.2 , 240.0-4 (1978). We do not think, however, that these regulations justified a reasonable belief on Westinghouse’s part that the attorney-client privilege would be preserved with respect to the Kirkland & Ellis letter and the other information disclosed to…”
D'Addario v. Geller, 129 F. App'x 1 (4th Cir. 2005). “1984), and 17 C.F.R. § 203.2 (2004) to support their argument for this privilege.”
Willard J. Lamorte v. Hon. Walter R. Mansfield, Judge of the United States Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of New York, 438 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1971). “” 17 C.F.R. § 203.2 . The long-standing regulation, set out above, was an articulation of the discretion possessed by the agency in determining whether to disclose information acquired in the course of certain investigatory proceedings.”
OKC Corp. v. Williams, 489 F. Supp. 576 (N.D. Tex. 1980). “While 17 C.F.R. §§ 203.2 and 203.5 designate formal investigations and the documents and information obtained thereby as “nonpublic,” these regulations are not issued pursuant to the FOIA.”
In re Legato Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 204 F.R.D. 167 (N.D. Cal. 2001). “17 C.F.R. § 203.2 expressly states that such materials are “deemed non-public.”
Pensacola Firefighters' Relief Pension Fund Bd. of Trs. v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 265 F.R.D. 589 (N.D. Fla. 2010). “Investigative proceedings are non-public and even the reports on the investigation are for staff and SEC use only.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 648 F.2d 118 (3rd Cir. 1981). “The internal rules promulgated by the SEC for itself state a procedure for staff contacts with governmental authorities: [T]he Commission approves the practice whereby officials of the Division of Enforcement at the level of Assistant Director or higher, and officials in…”
White v. Jaegerman, 391 F. Supp. 438 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). “17 C.F.R. §§ 203.2 , 203.5, members of the Commission’s staff have authority to render advice and assistance to members of the public.”
Kirkland v. Superior Court, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “” ( 17 C.F.R. § 203.2 (2001).) Leaving to one side the fact that the proceedings before the SEC have progressed well beyond a mere investigation, there are several reasons why we disagree.”
Zients v. LaMorte, 319 F. Supp. 956 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). “* * * ” The basic guidelines are established by the following provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations: 17 C.F.R. § 203.2 , which provides: “Information or documents obtained by the Commission in the course of any investigation or examination, unless made a matter of public…”
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.