{"id":5387,"date":"2012-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2012-12-22T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.blawgcloud.com\/2012\/12\/reviving_antifraud_lawsuit_ove"},"modified":"2022-03-09T16:29:02","modified_gmt":"2022-03-09T22:29:02","slug":"reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviving Antifraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Market-Timing Practices From Over Five Years Ago is Not the Answer, Say Ex-SEC Officials"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>In their amicus curiae brief, a number of ex-SEC Commissioners and top officials told the U.S. Supreme Court that the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to revive the agency\u2019s antifraud cases against investment advisory officials Bruce Alpert and Marc Gabelli was a mistake. The men, who are Gabelli Funds LLC\u2019s COO and portfolio manager, respectively, are accused of taking part in allegedly questionable market-timing practices involving the selling and buying of mutual fund shares to take advantage of short-term price swings. <\/p>\n<p>Per the SEC\u2019S 2008 securities case, Alpert and Gabelli committed these alleged violations between September 1999 and August 2002. While the district court threw out most of the lawsuit, finding that the majority of allegations were either untimely or not legally sufficient, the appeals court disagreed and reversed that ruling. It said that the defendants failed to fulfill the burden of demonstrating that a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have identified the alleged fraud more than five years before the SEC submitting its action. <\/p>\n<p>Amicus curiae brief: A brief is a statement of the law and the impact on the law or other persons if a case if decided a certain way.  \u201cAmicus curiae,\u201d is Latin for \u201cfriend of the court.\u201d This \u201cfriend\u201d can be any non-party to the lawsuit that has an opinion about it.  Feasibly, there could be 100 such briefs, but the court would only be interested in those from credible groups, persons or lawyers.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read_more_link\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/\"  title=\"Continue Reading Reviving Antifraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Market-Timing Practices From Over Five Years Ago is Not the Answer, Say Ex-SEC Officials\" class=\"more-link\">Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In their amicus curiae brief, a number of ex-SEC Commissioners and top officials told the U.S. Supreme Court that the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to revive the agency\u2019s antifraud cases against investment advisory officials Bruce Alpert and Marc Gabelli was a mistake. The men, who are Gabelli Funds [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3741],"tags":[2595],"class_list":["post-5387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-securities-fraud","tag-market-timing"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Reviving Antifraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Market-Timing Practices From Over Five Years Ago is Not the Answer, Say Ex-SEC Officials &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; December 22, 2012<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In their amicus curiae brief, a number of ex-SEC Commissioners and top officials told the U.S. Supreme Court that the decision by the U.S. Court of &#8212; December 22, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Reviving Antifraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Market-Timing Practices From Over Five Years Ago is Not the Answer, Say Ex-SEC Officials &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; December 22, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"In their amicus curiae brief, a number of ex-SEC Commissioners and top officials told the U.S. Supreme Court that the decision by the U.S. Court of &#8212; December 22, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reviving Antifraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Market-Timing Practices From Over Five Years Ago is Not the Answer, Say Ex-SEC Officials &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; December 22, 2012","description":"In their amicus curiae brief, a number of ex-SEC Commissioners and top officials told the U.S. Supreme Court that the decision by the U.S. Court of &#8212; December 22, 2012","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Reviving Antifraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Market-Timing Practices From Over Five Years Ago is Not the Answer, Say Ex-SEC Officials &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; December 22, 2012","twitter_description":"In their amicus curiae brief, a number of ex-SEC Commissioners and top officials told the U.S. Supreme Court that the decision by the U.S. Court of &#8212; December 22, 2012","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Reviving Antifraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Market-Timing Practices From Over Five Years Ago is Not the Answer, Say Ex-SEC Officials","datePublished":"2012-12-22T06:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-09T22:29:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/"},"wordCount":600,"keywords":["Market-timing"],"articleSection":["Securities Fraud"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/","name":"Reviving Antifraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Market-Timing Practices From Over Five Years Ago is Not the Answer, Say Ex-SEC Officials &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; December 22, 2012","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-12-22T06:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-09T22:29:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"In their amicus curiae brief, a number of ex-SEC Commissioners and top officials told the U.S. Supreme Court that the decision by the U.S. Court of &#8212; December 22, 2012","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/reviving-antifraud-lawsuit-ove\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reviving Antifraud Lawsuit Over Alleged Market-Timing Practices From Over Five Years Ago is Not the Answer, Say Ex-SEC Officials"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-1oT","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5387"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5387\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23078,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5387\/revisions\/23078"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}