Securities and Exchange Commission v. Genovese

Action Before the Court

Defendant Abraham “Avi” Mirman filed a motion asking the court to reconsider an earlier order. The filing identified the earlier order as one dated March 26, 2021, and stated that the earlier order granted the Securities and Exchange Commission summary judgment on a claim under Section 5 of the Securities Act concerning the “Look-Back Sale.” Those statements describe Mirman’s position in the motion rather than findings made in the short order deciding this motion.

Arguments in the Filing

Mirman argued that reconsideration was procedurally proper despite the delay in filing. He attributed the delay to serious medical issues involving prior counsel, a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and difficulties obtaining new counsel and additional information.

On the underlying issue, Mirman argued that Rule 144 permits a seller or broker to rely on an issuer’s statements that it had filed required reports and had been subject to the reporting requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act for the preceding 90 days. He contended that Liberty Silver’s Form 10-K contained such statements and that the court’s earlier interpretation of Rule 144 was legally mistaken. Mirman also argued that requiring shareholders to independently determine whether an issuer’s reporting obligations had been suspended would be impractical.

Court’s Ruling

The court denied the motion. The order states: “Motion DENIED for the reasons stated in the Order at Dkt. No. 218.” The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Dkt. No. 221. The provided order does not explain the reasons in Dkt. No. 218 or independently resolve the Rule 144 arguments summarized in Mirman’s filing.