Johnik has been correct all along. You have been incorrect all along.
What happened here is not difficult to grasp and understand. The case settled. There was no trial. There was no hearing where evidence was presented. The judge didn't hear a shred of evidence. The judge had no basis in evidence to make any factual findings or determinations of the culpability, or lack thereof, of any party. So there weren't any. Period.
The "pursuant to" language that you seem to find so significant is what gives the court jurisdiction to impose an officer / director ban and a civil penalty. 15 U.S.C. section 78 u (d) (2) and (3). It is nothing more than that. Federal courts possess their powers from Acts of Congress. They aren't empowered to just do whatever they feel like doing. That's called "jurisdcition" to take certain actions.
Let me give you a couple of other very simple examples. Let's say there is a personal injury action brought in federal court by reason of diversity of citizenship between the parties. The case settles for $500,000. There is no trial -- the case was settled. The court can sign a judgment awarding the plaintiff the $500K, but there is no finding of negligence. Likewise, let's say there is a breach of contract case in federal court and, again, the case settles for $500,000. There is no trial and no finding of breach of contract, but the judge can sign a judgment awarding plaintiff $500K. These are not hard concepts to grasp. Judges approve settlements in settled cases all the time. Because they act "pursuant to" statues that give them jurisdiction to take certain actions does not mean that they make findings where there is NO EVIDECNCE before them from which they could have made any factual findings.
Oh, one last thing. You never answered Johnik's question. You danced around it, but never answered it. |
