Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,813 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ratilal K. Patel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• indicating that a “before imposing a permanent bar,” a court should consider whether there has been a “prior history of unfitness”
• noting that defendant used “his position as officer and director” of the company to accomplish securities fraud scheme
• finding the district court’s application of those six (6) factors to be “useful in making the unfitness assessment”
• noting that the amount of disgorgement ordered need be only a reasonable approximation of the defendant’s profits causally connected to the violation and that any risk of uncertainty in the calculation should fall on the wrongdoer whose illegal conduct created the uncertainty
• finding general statement that defendant “used his position ... to engage in misconduct ... can in no way justify the prediction that future misconduct will occur”
• drawing from Jayne W. Barnard, When is a Corporate Executive “Substantially Unfit to Serve”?, 70 N.C. L.Rev. 1489,1492-93 (1992)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).