Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-1757
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00667-LMB-TRJ)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Lee Bentley Farkas was convicted in 2011 of one count
of conspiracy to commit bank, wire, and securities fraud; six
counts
of
bank
counts
of
fraud;
four
securities
prosecution,
the
counts
fraud.
Securities
of
wire
fraud;
Concomitant
and
Exchange
to
and
his
three
criminal
Commission
(SEC)
Exchange
Act
of
1934,
see
15
U.S.C.
78j(b),
injunction
Farkas
from
committing
future
acting
as
officer
or
director
of
company
that
had
at
any
mortgage-related
company
or
financial
of
court
stayed
Farkas
the
civil
criminal
case.
action
pending
Following
the
Farkas
States
v.
Farkas,
474
F.
2
Appx
349
(4th
Cir.
2012)
laws
the
and
provided
imposition
of
undisputed
the
facts
requested
sufficient
injunctive
to
relief.
that
collateral
estoppel
was
appropriate,
granted
I.
Farkas
courts
first
collateral
raises
estoppel
two
challenges
analysis.
To
to
the
apply
district
collateral
2004).
We
review
the
district
courts
application
of
Grp.,
Inc.,
134
F.3d
219,
223
(4th
Cir.
1998).
We
his
informal
brief.
See
4th
Cir.
R.
34(b)
(limiting
first
asserts
that
the
jury
was
improperly
jury instruction for the first time on appeal, and the district
court had no opportunity to pass on the merits of this issue, we
review it for plain error.
This question
Farkas
a
in
of
securities
reasonable
connection
doubt
with
fraud,
that
it
Farkas
securities
was
required
committed
of
Colonial
the
to
find
alleged
BancGroup.
made
repeated
fraudulent
4
misrepresentations
with
regard
to
mortgage
pools
in
which
Colonial
Bank
purchased
(recognizing
that
securities
include
participation
whether
litigated,
and
the
the
fraud
jury
involved
could
not
securities
have
Thus, the
was
convicted
clearly
Farkas
of
to
challenge
this
essential
element
during
his
defining
security
during
his
criminal
trial.
Corp.,
overcome
rely
on
701
new
collateral
opportunity
to
make
F.2d
1,
(1st
theories,
estoppel
these
evidence,
where
arguments
1983)
and
plaintiff
and
to
(a
plaintiff
arguments
had
to
fair
introduce
this
Assn
v.
Solimino,
501
U.S.
104,
107
(1991).
([A]
losing
FAG
Bearings
([M]ost
courts
Corp.,
require
335
F.3d
more
to
752,
avoid
763
(8th
issue
Cir.
2003)
preclusion
than
opportunity
misstatements
because
the
and
court
litigate
omissions
in
his
the
materiality
underlying
criminal
his
fraud
prosecution
of
the
convictions
limited
his
As the
Id.
And
the record clearly belies Farkas assertion that his counsel was
prevented from questioning the second witness as to the amount
of collateral available to Colonial Bank.
II.
Farkas
finally
asserts
that
the
district
court
its
imposition
of
injunctive
relief,
precluding
We agree
and
supporting
to
grant
materials
summary
--
judgment
including
the
if
the
facts
motion
considered
P.
56(e)(2)-(3).
Because
Farkas
did
not
and
Fed. R.
challenge
the
We
find
that
those
facts,
as
well
as
our
prior
amply
support
requested relief.
(2d
Cir.
2013)
unfitness
to
the
courts
decision
to
impose
the
serve
as
factors
officer
to
or
consider
director,
in
as
analyzing
required
to
impose officer and director bar); SEC v. Pros Intl, Inc., 994
F.2d 767, 769 (10th Cir. 1993) (addressing factors to consider
in evaluating likelihood of repetition of securities fraud, as
required for injunction); SEC v. Bonastia, 614 F.2d 908, 912 (3d
Cir. 1980) (listing factors to consider in imposing permanent
injunction); see also 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) (2012) (authorizing
district court, in action under securities laws, to impose any
equitable relief that may be appropriate or necessary for the
benefit of investors).
III.
Farkas
also
requests
that
we
place
his
appeal
in
proceeding.
We
find
such
relief
unwarranted
in
this
Should
convictions
under
Farkas
2255,
prove
he
successful
may
8
seek
in
relief
vacating
from
the
his
civil
AFFIRMED