Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bronson

Document and procedural posture

The provided document is a letter motion filed by defendant Edward Bronson, not a decision resolving the motion. The letter is dated May 20, 2022, and the filing information supplied identifies May 23, 2022. The motion followed Bronson’s May 6, 2022 notice of appeal from the court’s April 29, 2022 order denying his requests for relief from the 2017 final judgment, contempt judgment, and later orders.

Background described in the motion

The letter states that a November 24, 2021 order required Bronson to pay $500,000 in December 2021 and $1.1 million each month afterward until the money judgment was satisfied. The order provided that the U.S. Marshals Service could take him into custody if he failed to comply. According to the filing, Bronson made the December payment but missed the January 13, 2022 payment deadline. The court then ordered his custody on January 27, and later released him after confirmation that the January payment had been made.

The filing further states that the court issued an arrest warrant on February 14, 2022, for failure to make the February 13 payment, and that the warrant was executed on February 16. Bronson remained incarcerated because of the payment deficiency, according to the motion.

Relief requested

Bronson asked the court to stay, or pause, his incarceration and contempt orders while his appeal was pending and to order his immediate release. Alternatively, he requested release to home confinement. If the court denied that relief, he asked for a temporary stay long enough to seek a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Arguments made by Bronson

Bronson argued that the stay factors favored him: likely success on appeal, irreparable harm without a stay, little injury to the SEC from a delay, and the public interest in preserving the current situation while allegedly unsettled legal issues were resolved. He contended that the monetary judgment was punitive and exceeded the SEC’s authority under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5), relying in part on Supreme Court decisions concerning limits on disgorgement. He also argued that the judgment was a money judgment that had to be enforced through a writ of execution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, rather than through contempt and incarceration.

The motion asserted that Bronson had paid the civil penalties owed but remained incarcerated for failing to make a partial payment on the money judgment. It argued that incarceration prevented him from conducting business and generating income to satisfy the judgment. The filing also stated that the SEC opposed relief and that the parties had conferred about the motion.

Status of the motion

The text ends by directing the SEC to respond by May 27, 2022. It does not state that Judge Karas granted, denied, or otherwise resolved Bronson’s motion. No outcome on the requested stay, release, home confinement, or temporary stay can be determined from the provided text.