ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MONETARY REMEDIES
[Re: Docket Item No. 602]
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
In this civil enforcement action brought under several federal securities laws, presently before the Court is Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC" or "Plaintiff") Motion for Injunctive Relief and Monetary Remedies against Defendant Mark Feathers ("Feathers" or "Defendant") for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Plaintiff requests a three-pronged remedy, which includes a permanent injunction against violations of specific provisions of federal securities law, disgorgement of a total amount of $7, 782, 961.07, and a civil penalty in the amount of $300, 000.
The Court, having entered Summary judgment against Defendant Feathers on August 16, 2013, and having fully reviewed and considered the SEC's Motion, along with all other pleadings and exhibits submitted by the parties, and heard oral arguments presented by both parties at the hearing on October 22, 2013, and good cause appearing, orders that the SEC's Motion for Injunctive Relief and Monetary Remedies against Defendant Mark Feathers is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. Permanent Injunction
In the hearing, the SEC presented its arguments in support of the permanent injunction against Defendant from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15. U.S.C. §77q(a), Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78j(b), and Rule 10-b thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5, and Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78o(a)(1). The Securities Act and Exchange Act provide for injunctive relief upon a proper showing that there is a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the securities law. In its argument supporting an injunction, the SEC included the factors articulated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in SEC v. Murphy , 626 F.2d 633 (9th Cir. 1980), which the Court can use to assess the likelihood of future violations. In Murphy, the Ninth Circuit noted that the existence of past violations may give rise to an inference that there will be future violations, but the Court must assess the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant and his violations to predict the likelihood of future violations, which include factors such as: (1) the degree of scienter involved; (2) the isolated or recurrent nature of the infraction; (3) the defendant's recognition of the wrongful nature of his conduct; (4) the likelihood, because of defendant's professional occupation, that future violations might occur; and (5) the sincerity of his assurances against future violations. Id. at 655.
During the hearing, the Court provided Defendant Feathers with the opportunity to respond to the Murphy elements presented by the SEC. Defendant Feathers addressed only the two last factors listed above. Feathers expressed to the Court that in his career he has always followed the rules, and will continue to do so in the future. Feathers further presented to the Court that he is currently employed at a printing company.
The Court weighed all the factors and found that Feathers did not meet his burden to rebut the SEC's presentation. In the Order previously issued by this Court, the Court found that Feathers violated the antitrust provisions of the federal securities laws in the past. The Court further found that the SEC produced substantial evidence of Feathers' scienter and there were multiple instances of misrepresentation, thus satisfying the first two factors. There is no evidence presented in the pleadings or in the hearing that Feathers recognizes the wrongful nature of his conduct, thus meeting the third factor. As to the fourth factor, Feathers did not show that he would not re-enter the brokerage industry if he were able, and in his Response indicated that in the future he would hire a securities attorney so as not to violate securities law. For the fifth factor, while not recognizing his past wrongs, Feathers claims that as he has done in the past, he will continue to follow rules in the future. As a result of the Court's careful balancing of the Murphy factors and the conclusion that the SEC has met its burden to predict the likelihood of a future violation, the injunction should issue.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant and his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security:
(a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;
(b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
(c) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant and his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] in the offer or sale of any security by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly:
(a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;
(b) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission of a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the ...