IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Similar documents
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERIN SANBORN-ADLER, * v. * * No LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF * NORTH AMERICA, et al.

No U IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD APRIL 12, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC Fifth DCA Case No. 5D10-19, Lake County

CASE NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. SANDRA CLARK and RHONDA KNOOP,

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NO CQ DANNY KELLY, Appellant VERSUS. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee CIVIL ACTION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. No

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT KAWA ORTHODONTICS, LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant,

No: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. JOHN C. GORMAN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC th DCA Case No. 5D

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. TIMOTHY WHITE, ROBERT L. BETTINGER, and MARGARET SCHOENINGER,

Appellant, Lower Court Case No.: CC O

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

No and IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK DWAYNE MURPHY, Petitioner-Appellant TERRY ROYAL, WARDEN,

Case , Document 180, 06/09/2016, , Page1 of 16. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

No. 05- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. CAROLYN BURLISON; JAMES EADY; JERRY FLOYD; ROBERT GUNTER; and STEPHEN REINSCH,

HOW TO FILE A PETITION FOR REHEARING, REHEARING EN BANC AND HEARING EN BANC IN AN IMMIGRATION CASE

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. Petitioner, S.C. Case No.: SC DCA Case No.: 5D v. L.T. Case No.

D. Brian Hufford. Partner

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Appellant,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ALLERGAN, INC. and SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE, Plaintiffs/Appellants,

No In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. CHARLOTTE CUNO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

RESPONDENT CDC BUILDERS, INC. S RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS RIVIERA BILTMORE, LLC AND RIVIERA SEVILLA LLC S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF

2015 IL App (5th) U NO IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI 2013 CA STRIBLING INVESTMENTS, LLC. Appellant VS. MIKE ROZIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

AMENDED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Katharine B. Gresham (pro hac vice pending) Hearing Date: February 2, 2010

Case , Document 87-1, 03/11/2015, , Page1 of 10. (Argued: September 29, 2014 Decided: March 11, 2015)

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIR- CUIT. 535 F.3d 1053; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16647; 45 Comm. Reg.

If you had a model year Ford Explorer, you could get benefits from a class action settlement

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendants-Appellees.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE NO: SC v. THIRD DCA CASE NO.: 3D Lower Tribunal No.:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO

Stakes Are High For ERISA Fiduciaries

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Rule 6.1 of the Local Rules of

Case: Document: 56 Page: 1 11/13/ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D BRASS & SINGER, D.C., P.A., A/A/O MILDRED SOLAGES, Petitioner,

No In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Filed on behalf of Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY. v. No CA ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Green Machine Corp v. Zurich Amer Ins Grp

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( Act ), 1 and Rule

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE

Case 8:14-bk CPM Doc 101 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 28

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC L.T. No. 3D A.M. BEST ROOFING, INC., Petitioner, RICHARD KAYFETZ, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Virginia

In The Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC Fourth DCA Case No. 4D09-728

Regulatory Update SEC Adopts Rule Excluding Broker-Dealers Offering Fee-Based Accounts from the Investment Advisers Act of 1940

Case: Document: 60 Filed: 05/11/2017 Page: 1. No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Round 2 on the Legal Challenges to Contraceptive Coverage: Are Nonprofits Substantially Burdened by the Accommodation?

VIFX LLC By Richard G. Vento I v. Director Virgin Islands Bureau

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Case No CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al.,

No Abigail Noel Fisher, University of Texas at Austin, et al.,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA COA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No.

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: SC Appellants, vs. L.T. Case Nos.: 2011 CA 1584 GEORGE WILLIAMS, et al.

APPELLANT S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE S MOTION FOR REHEARING

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/ RALPH WHITLEY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv TCB

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv WS-B. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION. Chapter 11

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Defendant-In-Counterclaim/Appellee

December 17, 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOS EE, FF. Case No. 12-mc Ryskamp/Vitunac ROBERT JULIEN,


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-856

IRI Litigation Summit Speakers

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv CW

Official Form 201 Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy 4/16

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc

Docket No In The United States Court of Appeals For The First Circuit. Appellee, DZHOKHAR A. TSARNAEV, Defendant Appellant.

smb Doc 33 Filed 04/24/15 Entered 04/24/15 13:00:30 Main Document Pg 1 of 14

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 4D

Follow this and additional works at:

Jason A. Walters babc.com ALABAMA I DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I MISSISSIPPI I NORTH CAROLINA I TENNESSEE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 99-CV (GK)

Certificate of Interested Persons

No DD UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS, Plaintiff/Appellee,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. DCA Case No. 2D L.T. Case No CA

TAKE NO ACTION QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1 (888) OR VISIT

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ETS PAYPHONES, INC., Case No. 01-10107-DD Defendant, and CHARLES E. EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellee / On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Northern District of Georgia MOTION OF PUBLIC INVESTORS ARBITRATION BAR ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION S PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC Joel A. Goodman, Esq. Stephen Krosschell, Esq. Goodman & Nekvasil, P.A. 14020 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 808 P.O. Box 17709 Clearwater, FL 33762 Telephone: (727) 524-8486 Facsimile: (727) 524-8786 Counsel for Amicus Curiae

SEC v. ETS Payphones, Inc., No. 01-10107-DD CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Amicus curiae, through its undersigned counsel, hereby certifies that the following list contains the names of those persons and entities who, to counsel s knowledge, must be identified pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1-1: Americom, Inc. Axis Graphics, Inc. Catherine A. Broderick, Esq. Honorable Jack T. Camp, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia City Public Phones, Inc. Ethan H. Cohen, Esq. Charles E. Edwards Meyer Eisenberg, Esq. ETS Management Services, LLC ETS Payphones, Inc. ETS Payphones of California, Inc. ETS Vending, Inc. Joel A. Goodman, Esq. Goodman & Nekvasil, P.A. William P. Hicks, Esq. C-1 of 3

SEC v. ETS Payphones, Inc., No. 01-10107-DD IAQ Duct Doctor, Inc. Stephen Krosschell, Esq. Kutak Rock LLP Legends Communications, Inc. Liberty Motor Sports LLC Susan S. McDonald, Esq. Merritt Island LLC MSC National, Inc. Payphone Systems Acquisitions, Inc. Phoenix Telecom of Puerto Rico, Inc. Pleasant Hill Properties I, LLC Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy LLP Giovanni P. Prezioso, Esq. Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association S and R Telecommunications Consultants, Inc. W. Scott Sorrels, Esq. Jacob H. Stillman, Esq. Edward G. Sullivan, Esq. TPL, Inc. TSC Payphone Corp. Twinleaf, Inc. C-2 of 3

SEC v. ETS Payphones, Inc., No. 01-10107-DD Twinleaf Media, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Michael K. Wolensky, Esq. C-3 of 3

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE PETITION IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC The Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, through its undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully files this Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Petition in Support of the Securities and Exchange Commission s Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, and as grounds states as follows: 1. The Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association ( PIABA ) is a not-forprofit corporation, with more than 500 members from more than 45 states, districts, and territories, all of whom devote a significant portion of their practice to the arbitration of securities disputes, and all of whom represent public investors in arbitration. Collectively, PIABA members have represented or currently are representing tens of thousands of public investors in securities arbitrations around the country. 2. The official mission of PIABA is to promote the interests of public investors in securities arbitration by: a) protecting public investors from abuses prevalent in the arbitration process; b) making securities arbitration just and fair; and c) creating a level playing field for public investors in securities arbitration. 1

3. PIABA seeks to advance the rights of public investors through a variety of activities, including the submission of briefs as amicus curiae. The United States Supreme Court and federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have permitted PIABA to appear as amicus curiae in cases relating to securities arbitrations. PIABA publishes books and reports on securities arbitrations, conducts annual CLE programs for its members, and communicates with governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ), stock exchanges, and self-regulatory organizations, on issues of interest to PIABA and public investors. 4. The present case involves whether pay telephone investments offered by ETS Payphones, Inc. ( ETS ), are securities. In the decision under review, this Court determined that the ETS investments were not securities. Securities and Exchange Comm n v. ETS Payphones, Inc., 300 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2002). The SEC has now filed a Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc. 5. PIABA members represent hundreds of investors who purchased millions of dollars of ETS investments on the recommendation of registered representatives of brokerage firms. PIABA members have alleged on behalf of their clients in securities arbitrations sponsored by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., that the ETS investments are securities. This Court s decision for which rehearing is sought will thus have an impact on numerous arbitrations. This Court should permit PIABA to appear on behalf of these investors, who do not presently have any direct representation in this matter. 2

6. The decision of this Court for which rehearing is sought will have implications far beyond ETS, if it continues to be the law in this Circuit. In this decision, this Court has provided unscrupulous promoters with a bright line blueprint for fraud which will allow them to deprive investors of the protection of the federal securities registration laws and to evade with impunity the regulatory apparatus which Congress has instituted to protect investors. This Court held that investment contracts are not securities if they offer a fixed rate of return. A fixed rate of return, however, is the feature of an investment most likely to appeal to the safety-conscious elderly investors whom PIABA members commonly represent. The decision under review, if it remains the law, will therefore significantly increase the incidence of investment fraud in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Before countenancing this result, the Panel should reconsider its ruling, and the full Court should review the decision in the event that the Panel declines to do so. 7. The SEC has energetically and ably presented the case for finding that the ETS investments were securities. PIABA strongly supports the SEC s effort but asks for leave to provide an additional perspective from the ordinary investors point of view. In addition, PIABA has reviewed the briefs of the parties and believes that other cases and arguments support the SEC s position. PIABA therefore asks for leave to file an amicus petition to present these points and authorities on behalf of ordinary investors in this Circuit. 8. This Court has previously allowed the submission of amicus petitions in support of a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Messer v. E.F. Hutton 3

& Co., 847 F.2d 673, 674 (11th Cir. 1988) ( Upon publication of the panel s opinion, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) moved this Court for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of rehearing. The panel granted the motion.... ); Newton v. Capital Assurance Co., 245 F.3d 1306, 1307 (11th Cir. 2001) (The Petition for Rehearing, which the United States has supported as amicus curiae, is GRANTED. We agree with the United States.... ); Clover v. Total System Services, Inc., 176 F.3d 1346, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999) (discussing EEOC s argument raised in an amicus brief filed with a petition for rehearing); Eastland v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 714 F.2d 1066, 1067 (11th Cir. 1983) (discussing amicus brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., in support of the petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc ). WHEREFORE, PIABA respectfully requests this Court to grant this Motion. 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to Michael H. Wolensky, Esq., Kutak Rock, LLP, 225 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2100,Atlanta, Georgia 30303, and Catherine A. Broderick, Esq., Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0606 via U.S. Mail, on this * day of September, 2002. PUBLIC INVESTORS ARBITRATION BAR ASSOCIATION By: Joel A. Goodman, Esq. Fl. Bar No. 0802468 Stephen Krosschell, Esq. Fl. Bar No. 0351199 Goodman & Nekvasil, P.A. 14020 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 808 P.O. Box 17709 Clearwater, FL 33762 Tele: (727) 524-8486 Fax: (727) 524-8786 \\Server\c\WPDATA\User01\ETS Appeal\Mot.Supp.Rehearing 5