Securities & Exchange Commission v. Lauer, 478 F. App'x 550

Lauer founded and controlled Lancer hedge funds, managing their day-to-day operations.
SEC filed suit in July 2008 alleging a multi-year scheme to defraud investors via inflated fund-valuations.
During litigation, Lauer’s assets were frozen by the district court.
District court granted summary judgment against Lauer on liability in September 2008, and ordered $62 million disgorgement ($44M ill-gotten gains, $18M prejudgment interest).
The case proceeded in the Southern District of Florida; SEC sought disgorgement and related relief.
Lauer challenged asset freeze, venue, liability findings, disgorgement amount, and prejudgment interest on appeal; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether asset freeze was proper and properly limited	Lauer argues the freeze overbroad and failing to allow living/litigation funds.	SEC contends freeze was necessary to preserve disgorgement amount and avoid dissipation.	No abuse; district court did not err in ordering/refusing modification of the freeze.
Whether venue and transfer decisions were proper	Lauer contends improper venue and seeks transfer to a different district.	SEC argues venue proper in SD Fla; transfer would burden others and provide no clear advantage.	District court did not abuse discretion; venue proper and denial of transfer affirmed.
Whether summary judgment on liability was proper	Lauer challenges sufficiency of evidence, estoppel, and disclosure-related findings	SEC presented substantial evidence of manipulation and false statements; California estoppel applied; Morrison argument waived	Summary judgment affirmed; evidence supported liability and estoppel findings.
Whether disgorgement and prejudgment interest amount were proper	Lauer disputes $44M ill-gotten gains and the use of IRS underpayment rate for interest.	SEC justified reasonable approximation; court acted within discretion on rate and scope.	Disgorgement and interest upheld; amount and rate affirmed.

SEC v. ETS Payphones, Inc., 408 F.3d 727 (11th Cir. 2005) (asset freeze authority and standards)
Palmer v. Braun, 376 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2004) (venue transfer standards)
SEC v. Warren, 534 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008) (disgorgement standards)
Mut. Serv. Ins. Co. v. Frit Indus., Inc., 358 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2004) (prejudgment interest standards)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment burden shifting)
Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank, Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (S. Ct. 2010) (merits question on scope of §10(b))
United States v. Lay, 612 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2010) (investment adviser fiduciary relationship)