SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : XDSL mPhase tech: TV, Broadband Internet & Phone: 1 line!
XDSL 0.0002000.0%1:43 PM EDT
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: afrayem onigwecher who wrote (236)4/20/2001 4:52:32 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (2) of 292
 
COMMISSION DENIES EAJA CLAIM OF RICHARD ADAMS
The Commission has denied the application of Richard J. Adams of
Bloomfield, New Jersey for fees and expenses under the Equal Access to
Justice Act (EAJA). Adams was a vice president and financial and
operations principal of Graystone Nash, Incorporated, formerly a
registered broker-dealer.
Adams' EAJA claim arose from the Commission's dismissal of its
proceeding charging that Adams had participated in a fraudulent and
manipulative scheme involving Graystone initial public offerings and
their aftermarkets. The administrative law judge had dismissed the case
on the merits and further ruled that the proceeding was barred by the
statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. 2462. In dismissing the
proceeding on appeal, the Commission did not reach the merits, but
simply cited the age of the case and the fact that the Division of
Enforcement did not oppose dismissal.
The Commission rejected Adams' EAJA claim as untimely. The EAJA
requires that claims must be filed within 30 days of "final disposition"
of the underlying proceeding. Adams' claim was not filed until 86 days
after the proceedings against him had been dismissed. The Commission
noted that, in view of its determination that Adams' claim was not
timely filed, it was not reaching the issue of whether the Division's
position in the underlying proceeding was "substantially justified"
within the meaning of the EAJA. (Rel. 34-44205; File No. 3-8327-EAJ
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News