Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kistler
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-10657
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kistler, Judge Ramos directed the SEC to address whether a consent judgment could be entered against NOBS without a lawyer.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, Brian K. Kistler, and New Opportunity Business Solutions, Inc., particularly NOBS because it was not represented by counsel.
What happened
In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kistler, the Securities and Exchange Commission asked the court to enter proposed consent judgments against Brian K. Kistler and New Opportunity Business Solutions, Inc. (NOBS).
The court noted that NOBS is a corporation and is not represented by a lawyer. It also cited other courts that declined to enter consent judgments against unrepresented companies.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the SEC to explain by July 8, 2024, whether a consent judgment could properly be entered against NOBS while it remained unrepresented. The order did not decide that question.
The detailed version
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kistler · No. 1:22-cv-10657
- Edgardo Ramos
- June 27, 2024
Background
The Securities and Exchange Commission asked the Court to enter proposed consent judgments against defendants Brian K. Kistler and New Opportunity Business Solutions, Inc. (NOBS). A consent judgment is a judgment entered based on the parties’ agreement rather than after a contested decision on the claims.
Issue
The Court noted that NOBS is a corporation and is not represented by counsel in the case. The Court cited decisions from other courts declining to enter consent judgments under similar circumstances, including against an unrepresented company.
Order
The Court directed the SEC, by July 8, 2024, to advise the Court of its position on whether a consent judgment could properly be entered against NOBS while NOBS was not represented by counsel. The order did not state that the proposed consent judgments were granted or denied, and it did not resolve whether a judgment could be entered against NOBS.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.