{"id":632,"date":"2010-01-19T22:06:09","date_gmt":"2010-01-19T22:06:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2010\/01\/sec_cannot_order_former_rausch_1"},"modified":"2021-09-20T15:42:10","modified_gmt":"2021-09-20T20:42:10","slug":"sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/","title":{"rendered":"SEC Cannot Order Former Rauscher Pierce Broker to Compensate Investors for Losses, Says Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tAccording to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot order former Rauscher Pierce Refsnes Inc. broker Michael Siegel to uphold an award of restitution to investors who sustained financial losses as a result of his alleged broker misconduct<\/a>. Siegel worked as a general securities representative for the financial firm from October 1997 to June 1999. <\/p>\n

In 2002, NASD’s Department of Enforcement charged Siegel with “selling” away and making inappropriate recommendations to certain investors. Specifically, the investors that the alleged violations involved are Dorothy and Barry Landry and Linda and Huntington Downer, who invested in World Environmental Technologies Inc. The NASD has accused Siegel of recommending that they invest in World ET without reasonable cause for why doing so would be appropriate for them. To discipline him, NASD ordered Siegel to serve two six-month suspensions. They also fined him $30,000. <\/p>\n

While the NASD disciplinary committee did not order restitution, an NASD appeals panel did. He was told to pay $100,000 to the Landers and $303,000 to the Downers. Siegel appealed but the SEC affirmed the appeals panel’s decision.<\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot order former Rauscher Pierce Refsnes Inc. broker Michael Siegel to uphold an award of restitution to investors who sustained financial losses as a result of his alleged broker misconduct. Siegel worked as a general securities representative […]<\/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":[],"class_list":["post-632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-securities-fraud"],"yoast_head":"\nSEC Cannot Order Former Rauscher Pierce Broker to Compensate Investors for Losses, Says Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — January 19, 2010<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot order former Rauscher Pierce — January 19, 2010\" \/>\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\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"SEC Cannot Order Former Rauscher Pierce Broker to Compensate Investors for Losses, Says Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — January 19, 2010\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot order former Rauscher Pierce — January 19, 2010\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SEC Cannot Order Former Rauscher Pierce Broker to Compensate Investors for Losses, Says Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — January 19, 2010","description":"According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot order former Rauscher Pierce — January 19, 2010","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\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"SEC Cannot Order Former Rauscher Pierce Broker to Compensate Investors for Losses, Says Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — January 19, 2010","twitter_description":"According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot order former Rauscher Pierce — January 19, 2010","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"SEC Cannot Order Former Rauscher Pierce Broker to Compensate Investors for Losses, Says Court","datePublished":"2010-01-19T22:06:09+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-20T20:42:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/"},"wordCount":376,"articleSection":["Securities Fraud"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/","name":"SEC Cannot Order Former Rauscher Pierce Broker to Compensate Investors for Losses, Says Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — January 19, 2010","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-19T22:06:09+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-20T20:42:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission cannot order former Rauscher Pierce — January 19, 2010","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-cannot-order-former-rausch-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SEC Cannot Order Former Rauscher Pierce Broker to Compensate Investors for Losses, Says Court"}]},{"@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 & 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 & 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 & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-ac","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/632","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=632"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/632\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20326,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/632\/revisions\/20326"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}