975 F. Supp. 2d 151
D.D.C.2013Background
- SEC filed civil complaint against EagleEye Asset Mgm’t and Liskov on Sept. 8, 2011 for violations under Exchange Act and Advisers Act.
- SEC moved for summary judgment on June 15, 2012, which the court denied.
- Case proceeded to a nine‑day jury trial (Nov. 5–26, 2012) resulting in a verdict against Liskov on multiple counts.
- Remedies included a permanent injunction, disgorgement, and penalties following an oral hearing and final judgment.
- Final judgment was entered Dec. 13, 2012, with sanctions, disgorgement,$+ penalties totaling as reflected in the orders.
- The memorandum defends the denial of summary judgment and explains the jury verdict and sanctions in light of law and policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on elements requiring scienter or negligence | SEC contends no genuine dispute exists on scienter and negligence | Liskov argues jury should resolve state of mind; summary judgment improper | No; issues require jury to decide scienter/negligence |
| Whether there was a legal duty to disclose forex trading track record | SEC asserts materiality of disclosure under fiduciary duties | Liskov claims no duty to disclose; industry practice/tacit permission | Duty to disclose reserved for jury to decide; not summary judgment basis |
| Whether the court erred in granting/denying summary judgment affecting counts requiring scienter | SEC argues strong circumstantial evidence supports scienter | Liskov contends evidence could be disbelieved; not clear scienter | Jury could disbelieve victims' testimony; fact-finder should decide intent |
| Whether sanctions and penalties were justified given the jury verdict | SEC sought disgorgement, permanent injunction, and civil penalties | Liskov disputes the size/appropriateness of penalties | Sanctions appropriate; penalties imposed against both EagleEye and Liskov |
| Whether the court appropriately treated summary judgment standard and Reeves framework | SEC cites Reeves to justify granting; court not bound by jury credibility issues | Liskov disputes casting disputes in summary judgment terms | Court applied Reeves framework but retained jury credibility evaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (materiality standard and jury credibility assessments in summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (moving party bears burden to show no genuine dispute)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (standard for summary judgment mirrors judgment as a matter of law; credibility at issue)
- In re ClassicStar Mare Lease Litig., 727 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2013) (mirror imaging of summary judgment posture; jury findings contrasted)
- TJ Hooper (The), 60 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1932) (duty to act reasonably; industry practice not determinative)
- Fernandes v. AGAR Supply Co., Inc., 687 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2012) (existence of legal duty is a question of law)