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 denied Kistler’s request to remove a civil penalty from his consent judgment and set a status conference.
Brian K. Kistler, New Opportunity Business Solutions, Inc., and the Securities and Exchange Commission; the order directly denied Kistler’s request concerning his consent judgment.
What happened
In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kistler, the Securities and Exchange Commission had asked the court to enter proposed consent judgments against Brian K. Kistler and New Opportunity Business Solutions, Inc. The SEC later withdrew its request as to the corporation.
Kistler asked the court to remove the civil penalty from his consent judgment based on a recent Supreme Court decision and otherwise asked to set aside the judgment.
Judge Ramos denied Kistler’s request, finding that he had not identified a basis for removing the civil penalty. The court directed the parties to discuss how the case should proceed and scheduled a telephone status conference.
The detailed version
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kistler · No. 1:22-cv-10657
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 9, 2024
Background
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had previously asked the court to enter proposed consent judgments against Brian K. Kistler and New Opportunity Business Solutions, Inc. (NOBS). The SEC later withdrew its request as to NOBS. The order states that NOBS is a corporation and is not represented by counsel in the case.
Kistler asked the court to amend his consent judgment by removing the civil penalty, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. He also asked the court to set aside the consent judgment.
Ruling
The court agreed with the SEC that Kistler had not identified a basis for removing the civil penalty from the consent judgment. The court therefore denied Kistler’s request.
Next Steps
The court directed the parties to meet and discuss how the case should proceed. It scheduled a telephone status conference for July 25, 2024, at 11:00 a.m.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.