United States District Court, D. Nevada
Kenneth Guido, Timothy N. England, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Attorneys for the Plaintiff
FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO JAMES C. WARRAS AND ANTHONY B.
M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court.
Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC” or “the Commission”), filed a
motion for summary judgment as to James C. Warras
(“Warras”) and Anthony B. Brandel
(“Brandel”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Court has reviewed Plaintiff Securities and Exchange
Commission's (“Commission”) Motion For
Summary Judgment as to Warras and Brandel, all supporting
documents, and all opposition thereto (see ECF Nos.
on the evidence and authorities presented in support of the
motion, the Court hereby FINDS as follows:
December 16, 2013, the SEC filed the Complaint in this action
against Warras and Brandel, among others, alleging that
Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C.
§ 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §
240.10b-5], Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of
1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§
77e(a) and (c)], and Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C.
§ 77q(a)]. The SEC also alleged that Brandel acted as an
unregistered broker in violation of Section 15(a) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)]
December 11, 2013, the United States indicted Defendants for,
inter alia, their violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 enacted thereunder, and Section
17(a) of the Securities Act.
December 7, 2015, the jury in U.S. v. Brandel, 2:13
cr 439 (D. Nevada), unanimously decided, inter alia,
that Defendants Warras and Brandel (collectively
Defendants”) violated the Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act.
undisputed evidence is that Warras and Brandel solicited
investors to purchase the securities that were not registered
with the SEC and that the funds for the investments were
transmitted via wire transfers in interstate commerce in
violation of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act 15
U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c).
undisputed evidence is that Brandel not only solicited
investors to purchase the unregistered securities, but
negotiated the terms of those agreements, instructed the
investors where to deposit their investments and how the
investors' funds should be distributed, and earned
transactions based income on the transactions, acting as an
unregistered broker in violation of Section 15(a) [15 U.S.C.
Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact
and that the SEC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the SEC's