Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bronson
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:12-cv-06421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bronson, Judge Karas ordered Bronson to respond to the Commission’s request for additional coercive sanctions.
Edward Bronson was ordered to respond to the Commission’s request; the Securities and Exchange Commission sought additional sanctions based on alleged violations of the court’s contempt order.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bronson, the Securities and Exchange Commission told the court that Edward Bronson had violated an earlier contempt order. That order required him to make a payment and provide financial records, documents, and a complete accounting of his assets and income.
The Commission said Bronson had not provided current financial records, had not completed other requested document production involving himself, Dawn Bronson, and V2IP, and had not provided the required accounting. It asked the court to impose additional coercive sanctions, including possible imprisonment until Bronson complied.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered Bronson to respond to the Commission’s letter by February 10, 2021. The text provided does not show that the judge ruled on whether to impose additional sanctions or imprisonment.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bronson · No. 7:12-cv-06421
- Kenneth Karas
- Feb. 5, 2021
Background
The Securities and Exchange Commission asked the court to impose additional coercive sanctions against Defendant Edward Bronson for violating the court’s January 19, 2021 contempt order. Civil contempt sanctions are measures intended to pressure a person to comply with a court order.
The January 19 order required Bronson, among other things, to make a good-faith payment within one week and to produce all financial records and other documents requested by the Commission, including records concerning Dawn Bronson and V2IP. It also required a full accounting of his assets and income. After Bronson did not make the payment on time, the court ordered him to pay by January 29 and to file an affidavit explaining the delay. The Commission stated that Bronson filed the affidavit on February 24, although the letter is dated February 5 and the text therefore contains an apparent date inconsistency.
The Commission’s Request
The Commission argued that Bronson’s statement that there were no unsatisfied document requests was inaccurate. It said that:
- Bronson had not produced documents through the present, including recent financial-account statements; - prior responses by Bronson and Dawn Bronson acknowledged that some requested documents had not been produced; - additional records produced by Bronson’s second attorney did not complete the production; and - Bronson had not provided the ordered accounting or explained why he had not done so.
The Commission characterized these events as repeated violations of the January 19 order. It asked the court to order Bronson to identify the document-production references for the categories he claimed to have completed and to impose additional coercive sanctions, up to imprisonment, until he provided the required accounting and documents.
What the Court Did
The court did not, in the provided text, decide whether to impose additional sanctions or imprison Bronson. The letter is marked “So Ordered,” and it directs that Bronson respond to the Commission by February 10, 2021. The specific text provided therefore shows an order requiring a response, not a final ruling on the Commission’s sanctions request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.