SEC v. Edward M. Daspin, a/k/a "Edward Michael", a/k/a "Ed Michael", No. LR-22920, Southern District of New York (Feb. 6, 2014) — Press Release
raw: Edward M. Daspin, a/k/a "Edward Michael," a/k/a "Ed Michael,"
Edward M. Daspin, a/k/a "Edward Michael," a/k/a "Ed Michael,", No. LR-22920 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2014)
Edward M
Edward M. Daspin is accused of an unspecified fraud, with the SEC seeking his investigative testimony. No specific dollar amounts are mentioned in the document. Daspin is facing a civil action, with the SEC seeking to compel his testimony. The Court of Appeals denied Daspin's motion for a stay and affirmed the district court's order requiring him to appear for testimony, finding that he failed to show irreparable harm or a clear abuse of discretion.
Edward M. Daspin is accused of an unspecified fraud, with the SEC seeking his investigative testimony. No specific dollar amounts are mentioned in the document. Daspin is facing a civil action, with the SEC seeking to compel his testimony. The Court of Appeals denied Daspin's motion for a stay and affirmed the district court's order requiring him to appear for testimony, finding that he failed to show irreparable harm or a clear abuse of discretion. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought investigative testimony from Edward M. Daspin in connection with an ongoing securities fraud investigation, but Daspin resisted, claiming health risks. A district court ordered him to appear for testimony under specified conditions and denied his request for the SEC to pay for a physician’s attendance. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, finding Daspin failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal or irreparable harm, and noted his appeal would be mooted once he testified. The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the subpoena. No charges were filed at this stage, as the proceeding remained in the investigative phase. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought investigative testimony from Edward M. Daspin in connection with an ongoing securities fraud investigation, but Daspin resisted, claiming health risks. A federal district court ordered him to appear for testimony under specified conditions and denied his request for the SEC to pay for a physician’s attendance. The Second Circuit affirmed this order, ruling Daspin failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal or irreparable harm, noting his health concerns were adequately addressed by the court’s conditions. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and since testimony would moot the appeal, it affirmed the order without delay. No charges or financial penalties were imposed at this stage, as the proceeding remained in the investigative phase.
Extracted insights
- person edward daspin
- person judge berman
- court that the order was a clear abuse of the district court's discretion
- court united states court of appeals for the second circuit
- United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit denied Edward Daspin's motion for a stay of a December 5, 2013 order
- United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit affirmed Judge Berman's order requiring Edward Daspin to appear for investigative testimony
- United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit affirmed Judge Berman's order denying Edward Daspin's request for the SEC to pay for his physician to attend testimony
- Judge Berman ordered Edward Daspin to appear for investigative testimony in compliance with an SEC investigative subpoena
- Judge Berman denied Edward Daspin's request that the SEC be required to pay for his physician to attend the testimony
- Edward Daspin failed to show that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal
- Edward Daspin failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm from appearing for testimony under the ordered conditions
- Edward Daspin failed to show that the order was a clear abuse of the district court's discretion
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 22920 / February 6, 2014 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Edward M. Daspin, a/k/a "Edward Michael," a/k/a "Ed Michael,", Civil Action No. 13-4622 (2d Cir.); 13 Misc. 389 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y) Court of Appeals Denies Stay of Order Compelling Investigative Testimony; Affirms District Court's Exercise of Discretion On February 5, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Cabranes, J.; Carney, J.; Droney, J.) issued a summary order denying Edward Daspin's motion for a stay of a December 5, 2013 order of the Hon. Richard Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and affirming Judge Berman's order: (1) requiring Daspin to appear for investigative testimony in compliance with an SEC investigative subpoena; and (2) denying Daspin's request that the SEC be required to pay for Daspin's physician to attend the testimony. The Court of Appeals held that Daspin could not show that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal in light of the conditions Judge Berman had ordered to address his claim that having to testify posed a threat to his health and had failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm from appearing for the testimony under those conditions. Noting that Daspin's appeal will be mooted by his appearance for testimony, and that the court already had the information necessary to decide the appeal, the court also affirmed Judge Berman's order, ruling that Daspin had failed to show that the order was a clear abuse of the district court's discretion. For further information, please see Litigation Release Nos. 22884 (Dec. 4, 2013) and 22871 (Nov. 18, 2013).
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 22920 / February 6, 2014 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Edward M. Daspin, a/k/a "Edward Michael," a/k/a "Ed Michael,", Civil Action No. 13-4622 (2d Cir.); 13 Misc. 389 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y) Court of Appeals Denies Stay of Order Compelling Investigative Testimony; Affirms District Court's Exercise of Discretion On February 5, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Cabranes, J.; Carney, J.; Droney, J.) issued a summary order denying Edward Daspin's motion for a stay of a December 5, 2013 order of the Hon. Richard Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and affirming Judge Berman's order: (1) requiring Daspin to appear for investigative testimony in compliance with an SEC investigative subpoena; and (2) denying Daspin's request that the SEC be required to pay for Daspin's physician to attend the testimony. The Court of Appeals held that Daspin could not show that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal in light of the conditions Judge Berman had ordered to address his claim that having to testify posed a threat to his health and had failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm from appearing for the testimony under those conditions. Noting that Daspin's appeal will be mooted by his appearance for testimony, and that the court already had the information necessary to decide the appeal, the court also affirmed Judge Berman's order, ruling that Daspin had failed to show that the order was a clear abuse of the district court's discretion. For further information, please see Litigation Release Nos. 22884 (Dec. 4, 2013) and 22871 (Nov. 18, 2013).