Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 1 of 16
Uqited StatesCouytofA ppexls
Eleventh Clrcuit
58 Forsyth Street,N.W .
Atlu la,Georgia 3û303
Jolm Ley
/oralesandfo= svisit
ClerkoftkeCourt
wwm call.uscottrts.gov
June 28,2012
FILED b
D.C.
StevenM.Larimgre
ClcrK U.S.Dism ctCoud
4o0# MIAMIAvE RM 8N09
JUL 23 2012
M IAM I Fti 33128-1813
STEVEN M tARI
MORF
AppealNum ber:09-15138-EE
CaseStyle:SEC v.M ichaelLauer
Disd ctCOM Number: 03-80612 CV-K AM
CLERKU à DIST CT
s.D.otdtk.-Ml
kvl
n eenclosedce fiedcopyofthejudgmcntandacopy ofthiscoazl'sopinion arehcrebyissued
asthem andateofthiscourt-
n eclerk ofthecoO oragency shown aboveisrm uemed to acknowledgereceipton
thecopy ofthisletterenclosed totheclerk.
A cokyofthisletter,andtlxejudpnentform ifnotM above,b
-u-tnotacopvofthecou-r
-t
-'
s
decislon.isalso beingm ailed tocollnAelandpro sepm ies.A copy ofthecourt'sdecision
waspreviously mailed to counseland pm separtieson thc dateitwasissued.
Sinccrcly,
John Ley,Clerk ofCourt
ReplyTo:James0.Delaney (404)335-6113
Encl,
MDT-I(06/2006)
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 2 of 16
U n ited S tates C ou rt of A p peals
For the Eleventh C ircu it
No.09-15138
-
FILED
u s COURT OF APPEALS
ELEV EN TH CIRCU IT
DistrictCourtDocketNo.
03-80612-CV-KAM
A pr 19,2012
)o > LEy
CLERK
SECURITIES Ar EXCHANGE COM M ISSION,
PlaintiF-Appellee,
UN ITED STATES OF AM ERICA ,
1
l
Trtle Gop - .se
GIe U-S,Co
A
Intervenor-plaim ifr,
Gl ve lt
VCFSUS
BY:
M ICH AEL LAU ER,
aI&,
'
Clerk
Atlam a,Oe rgia
Defendant-Appellant,
LANCER M ANA GEM EN T GROU P,LLC,eta1.,
Defendants.
Appeal om
e Um'ted States is 'ctCo
forthe Southern D istrictofFlon'da
JU D O M E N T
Itishereby ordered,adjudged,anddecreedthattheattached opinion included hereinby
reference,isenteredasthejudgmentofthisCourt.
ueD AS MANaxy
%%
e
JUN 2 8 2212
:.Gou:TOF& P
YLANTA
.
Entered: April19,2012
Forthe Court: John Ley,Clerk
By: Clark,Djunnna
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 3 of 16
gDO NOT PUBLISH)
IN TH E UN ITED STA TES COU RT OF A PPEA LS
F()R THE ELEV EN TH CIRCU I
ktlJ!,
t.
'
-: :'t'
Jl.I'-1'()i'.
-'
$
ïl
'h('l '
hI.).h
!'Et''
ssil'
%'-!Jpt'I!t('L
N O.09-15138
'
'
v1'1:21 ik.
'.-?l'l.
7
.
i()!l'
N. ll''h'
( i I-lktI
xt
.
D .C .DocketN o.03-806l2-CV -K AM
SECURITIES AN D EX CHA NG E CO M M ISSION ,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VCrSUS
M ICHA EL LAU ER ,
D efendant-Appellant.
Appealfrom the United StatesD istrictCourt
forthe Southern D istrictofFlorida
(April19,2012)
Before M ARTIN ,H ILL and EBEL,*CircuitJudges
.
PER CURIA M :
+
Honorable David M .Ebel,U nited StatesCircuitJudge forthe Tenth CircuitCourtof
Appeals,sitting by designation.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 4 of 16
M ichaelLauerraisesa hostofchallengesto the districtcourt's grantof
summaryjudgmentagainsthim in thiscivilenforcementaction broughtby the
Securitiesand ExchangeColnmission(dtSEC'').Hechallengesthetermsofthc
freeze ofhisassets'
,the vertue ofthe litigation;various courtfindingsrelating to
l4isliability;the am ountofallegcd ill-gotten gains hehasbeen required to
disgorge;and the am ountofintercsthem ustpay on thatdisgorgem ent. After
carefulreview ofthe parties'briefs and the record,and w ith the benefitoforal
argum cnt,w e affirm .
Thepertinentfactsand proceduralhistory ofthiscase are capably setforth
in the districtcourt's Orderand Opinion. Forourpurposes,itis sufficientto say
thatLauerwas a founder,the sole m anagerand principalow nerofLancerM gm t
.
Group LLC and LancerM gmt.Group 11LLC (together,ittaancer''),and in that
capacity he controlled the operations and activitiesofseveralhedge funds
(together,the tçlk-unds''),
The SEC broughtthis action againstLaueron July 3, 2008,alleging thathe
had cngaged in a m ulti-yearschem e to defraud the Funds'investors l According
.
lSpecifically,$heSEC allegedthatLauerhadviolated:Sections17(a)(1)-(3)ofthe
SecuritiesAct;Section l0(b)of1heExchangeAct,andaccompanyingExchangeActRule 10b-5;
Section20(a)oftheExchangeAct:andSections206(1)and(2)oftheAdvisersAct.See l5
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 5 of 16
to the SEC,Lauer'sschem e retied on m isrepresenting the true value ofthe Funds
by artificially intlating the value ofholdingsin thinly-traded shellcom panies,
allowing Lancerto collecthigherfeesfrom investorsand to attractnew investors
by elaim ing better-than-m arketreturns. To hide the schem e, Lauerm ade
num erousm isrepresentationsin the Funds'private placem entm em oranda
(G:PPM s'')>used fakedtmodelportfoliosr''and made falsestatem entsin investor
new sletters and ealls.In the five years follow ing the filing ofthe SEC 'S
complaint,thiscase w as litigated in the Southelm DistrictofFlorida D uring that
.
entire tim e,Lauer'sassetsw cre frozen.
O n Septem ber28,2008,the dtstrictcourtgranted the SEC'Sm otion for
summaryjudgmentastoLauer'sliability.Sevenmonthslater,thedistrictcourt
issued an Orderrequiring Lauerto disgorge $62 million $44 m illion in ill-gotten
gainsand another$18 million ofprejudgmentinterestcharged atthe lRS
underpaym entrate.
II.
W ereview adistrictcourtordergranting summaryjudgmentdeqpvo,
view ing allfactsin the lightm ostfavorable to Lauerasthe non-m oving party and
drawing allinferences in hisfavor.BurgerKina Com v.E-Z Eatina,41 Com .,
.
U.S.C.j78j(b);17C.F.R.j240.l0b-5v
'l5U.S.C.j77q(a),
'l5U.S.C.j78t(a),
'
15 U.S.C.j 80b-6.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 6 of 16
572 F.3d 1306,1312-13 (11th Cir.2009).W ereview thefollowing issuesLauer
raises foran abuse ofdiscrction:the districtcourt's ordersrelating to an asset
freeze'
,itsdenialofa m otion to dism issforlack ofvenue orto transferto another
district;and thedistrictcourt'saward ofdisgorgementandprejudgmentinterest.
SEC y.ETS Payphones,Inc.,408F.3d 727,73l(11th Cir.2005)(assetfreezel;
Palmerv.Braun,376F.3d 1254,1257(1lthCir.2004)(venuetransfer);SEC v.
W arren,534 F.3d 1368,1369 (11th Cir.2008)(disgorgem ent);M ut.Serv.Ins.Co.
y-,FritIndus.,Inc.,358F.3d 1312,1325(1lthCir.2004)(prejudgmentinterest).
111.
First,Lauerclaim sthatthe districtcourtabused its discretion in im posing,
and declining to m odify,thc freeze itim posed on his assets Lauer argues thatthe
.
assetfreeze w as im properbecause itdid notprovide forhisliving orlitigation
expenses,and eneom passed assetshe claim ed w ere earned before the period ofthe
alleged fraud.
Tbe district coul'tm ay freeze assets in order to preserve funds w hile a party
seeksan equitable rem edy sueh asdisgorgem ent. ETS Pavphones,408 F .3d at
A sthe party seeking tiefreeze,the SEC m ustprovide a reasonable
approximation ofthefundsstlbjectto disgorgementand,ifpotentialdisgorgement
is greaterthan the value ofthe defendant'sassets,the districtcourtcan ordera full
assetfreeze. See id.at734--36.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 7 of 16
By offering only estim ates asto hisnetw orth,Lauerdid notm eaningfully
rebutthe SEC'S show ing tltathispotentialdisgorgem entexceeded his netw orth
,
Seeid,at735-36 (holding that,sincethedefendantfailed to provethathisassets
cxceededthepotentialdisgorgementamount,atotalfreezewasappropriate).Asa
result,the districtcourtwould have been unable,based on tlle inform ation before
it,to freeze specific assetswhilereleasing ftlndsthatLauer claim s should have
been excluded. Beyond this,the districtcourtexpresscd concern thatthe value of
the assets would dim inîsh ifthey w ere notfrozen.Those facts,com bined w ith the
broad discretion districtcolzrts have in thisrealm ,lead usto conclude thatthe
districtcourt's decisionsin ordering and refusing to m odify the assetfreeze a
second tim e,though perhaps heavy-handed,werenotan abuse ofdiscretion. See
l5U .S.C.j78u(d)(5)(theSEC itmay seck,and any Federalcourtmay grant,any
cquitablereliefthatmay beappropriateornecessary forthebenefitofinvestors'').
N ext,L auer argues thatthe district courtabused its disctetion in denying his
m otion to dism issforlack ofvenue and hism otion to transfervenue The SEC
.
filed thepresentcom plaintin the Southem D istrictofFlorida in July 2003 W hen
.
eightm onthslaterLauerm oved to dism issortransferthe case based on venue
considerations,thedistrictcr
ourtdenied hismotionbecause:(1)Lauerhad already
consentedtothecourt'sjurisdiction'
,(2)venuewasappropriate'
,and(3)the
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 8 of 16
equities weighed againstchanging venue.The districtcourtalso denied a follow up motion upon finding thlltLauerdid notdem onstrate sufficiently changed
circum stances.
In securities aetions,venue isproperttin the districtwherein the defendantis
found orisan inhabitantortransactsbusiness ''l5U.S.
C,jj77v(a),78aa;see
.
also 15 U.S.C.j 80b-14.A defendantmay moveto dismissalawsuitforimproper
venue,Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(3),ormovetotransferacivilaction to any other
districtwhere itm ighthave been broughtupon showing thatdoing so w illbe
convenientforthepartiesandwitnesses,andservetheinterestsofjustice,
28 U.S.C.j 1404(a).Butthe''plaintiffschoiceofforum should notbedisturbed
tlnless itisclearly outweiglled by otherconsiderations, ''and a transferthatw ould
only shiftinconvenience from the dcfendantto the plaintiffdoesnotoutw eigh the
plaintiffschoiceforSection 1404(a)purposes,Robinson v.Giarmarco & Bill,
P,ç.,74 F.3d253,260(11thCir.1996)(quotationmarksomitted).
B y subm itting to the court's authority on a num ber of occasionsbefore
contesting venue,Lauerarguably waivedhisvenueobjection. See.e.g.,Baragona
v.KuwaitGulfLink Transp.Co.,594F.3d 852,854(1lth Cir.2010)(notingthat
appearancesufficienttowaivepersonaljurisdictiondefense).ButevenifLauer
did notwaive venue,the retrord suppol'
ts the districtcourt'svenue decisions
,
V enue wasproperatthe outset,since severalofthe businessesw hose stock Lauer
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 9 of 16
w asalleged to m anipulate w ere located in Flotida,and he com m issioned allegedly
fratldulentvaluations ofthese com paniesusing fil'
m slocated there. Further,w hile
venue m ighthavc been asappropriate in otherlocations,there were good reasons
notto transferby the tim e lwauerfiled his venuc m otion.The SEC staff, the
Rcceiver,and allofthe evidencew ere located in the Southern D istrictofFlorida;
and num erous m otions were pending beforethe districtcourt,which w asby then
fam iliarw ith the case. Thus,w hile transferm ighthave benefitted Lauer, itw ould
have inconvenienced allthe otheractors in thecase,and wasnottherefore
requircd. Sçç Robinson,74 F.3d at260. A sa result,w e conclude thatthe district
courtdid notabuse itsdiscl'etion in denying Lauer'sm otionsrelating to venue
.
V.
Lauerpresents severalargum entsforwhy the districtcourterred in
awardingpartialsummaryjudgmcnttotheSEC withrespecttohisliability.
Gencrally,apm-tymovingfbrsummaryjudgmenthastheburden ofshowingthat
there isno genuine issue offact. BurxerK ina,572 F.3d atl313. If the m oving
party succeedsin this,the burden shiftsto the non-m oving party to show that
issuesofm aterialfactexist. Id. Litigantsw ho failto briefissues on appeal, or
w ho only raise issuesforthe firsttim e in a reply brief,have abandoned those
issues.Tim son v.Simpson,518F.3d 870,874 (11th Cir.2008).
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 10 of 16
W e addresseach ofLauer's argum ents in ttlrn First,Lauer claim sthe
.
districtcourterredbyconcludingthattheCaliforniajudgmentestoppedhim from
contestinghismanipulation ofTFGP stocks.Theestoppeleffectofajudgmentis
detennincdbythelawsinthejudgment'sjurisdiction,inthiscaseCalifornia.See
Hartv,Pullm an,Inc.,764 17.2d 1443,1447n.4 (11th Cir.1985). UnderCalifornia
law,thedefaultjudgmententeredagainstLauerinthatstate'scourtsestopshim
from contesting the allegation thathe m anipulated TFG P stocks See Gottlieb v.
.
Kest,46 Cal.Rptr.3d 7,34 (Cal.Ct.App.2006)(stating thatCaliforniaEtaccords
collateralestoppeleffecttodefaultjudgments,atleastwherethejudgment
containsan expressfindingon the allegations'').
Seeond,Lauerassertsa ttrule ofcom pleteness''violation since the SEC
subm itted only partialdcpositionsinto evidence A lthough Laueris correctthat
.
the SEC did this,Lauerneversubm itted the rem aining deposition portionshe
desired,and neverm oved tlle courtto com pelthe SEC to subm itthe com plete
docum ents,asthe FederalRules ofCivilProcedurc perm it. Sçe Fed.R .C iv.P.
32(a)(6).Asaresult,norule ofcom pletenessviolation occurred. SeeFed.R.
Evid.106.
Third,LauerarguesthatM orrison v.Nat'lA ustl Bank,Ltd.,130 S.Ct.
.
2869 (2O10)foreclosesliabtlity forsecuritiestraded overseas.But,despite
Lauer'sclaim to thecontrary,theM orrison issueisnotjurisdietional,butisa
8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 11 of 16
meritsquestion. SeeM orrison,130 S.Ct.at2877 ('t(Tjo ask whatconductj 10(b)
reachesisto ask whatconductj 10(b)prohibits,which isa meritsquestion.'').As
aresult,Lauerhad to raise thisatthe districtcourt,even though the authority for
hisargum cntw as decided afterhe filed hisinitialbriefin thisCourt. SeeU nited
Statesy.Nealya232F.3d825,830(1lthCir.2000)(çtpartiesmustsubmita11
issueson appealin theirinitialbriefs....gpqartiescannotproperly raisenew
issues atsupplem entalbriefing,even ifthe issuesarise based on the intervening
decisionsornew developmentscited in thesupplementalauthority,''). Lauerdid
notraise the argum ent,so the argum entw asw aived. Forthe sam e reason,Lauer
hasw aived his argum ents thatJanusCapitalGrp.,Inc.etal.,v.FirstD erivative
Traders,131S.Ct,2296 (201l)preventshim from being liableform aking falsc
statem ents,and thathe shotlld be ableto rely on experttestim ony given in his
criminalproceedings. Seejd,
-
W enow movetotheobjectionsLauerraisestothedistrictcourt's
factGndings. Lauerw asrequired to presentm ore than m ere allegationsin
opposing thcSEC'Smotion forsummaryjudgment.SeeCelqpx Com .v.Catrett,
477 U.S.317,322-33,106 S.Ct.2548,2552-53 (1986).The districtcoul't
concluded thathe failed to do so,explicitly stating thatitchose notto give w eight
to whatitregarded as Lauer'sconclusory claim s.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 12 of 16
Though Lauerarguesthathe could nothave m anipulated stocks, the
Californiajudgmentestopshim from arguing thathedid notmanipulatcTFGP
stocks'
,and,even apartfrom those factsLauerisestopped from contesting, the
districteourtfound am ple otherevidence ofstock m anipulation asw ell
.
W ith respectto the allegcd disclosure violations,Laueris correctthat
disclosure dutiesdiffer for hedge funds as com pared to othersecuritiescontexts,z
Butthe districtcourtcertainly did noterrin itsholding thatthe law s do notperm it
affirm ativem isrepresentationsto investorsand potentialinvestors. W hile Lauer
had diseretion in valuing theportfolio'sholdings,and the Funds'm arketing at
leastperfunctorily w arned investors ofthe risks ofinvesting,these factsw ould
only have m ade a reasonable investoraw are thatvaluation ofthe Funds'holdings
waslessreliable(and thevItlueperhapslessstable)than typicalmarket-traded
securities. W e are,how ever,aw areofno legalsupportforthe idea thatthese
w am ings would have negated investors'expectation thatLauerw ould operate in
good faith to determ ine the m ostaccurate value forthe Funds,and to reportthe
Funds'holdingstnlthfully. The districtcourthad beforc itoverwhelm ing
evidence ofLauer'sknow ing false statem tnts,com ing in a num berofform s
2See,e.g.,Goldsteinv.SEC,45lF.3d 873,875 (D C.Cir.2006)(ççW hilemutualfunds,
.
forexample,mustregisterwiththe(SEC!anddisclosetheirinvestmentpositionsandfinancial
condition,hedge ftkndstypically remain secretive abouttheirpositionsand strategies, even to
theirown investors.').
l0
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 13 of 16
(PPM S,newsletters,fakeportfolios,andconferencecalls),pertainingtoavariety
ofissues(portfolio positions,thestatusofaudits,concemsofauditors,and staff
backgrounds),andmadetoseveralinvestors,auditors,andpotentialinvtstors.
Further,the record includes specific,,uncontroverted evidence thatthese know ing
m isrepresentationsw cre m aterial,w ith individualinvestors in factbasing thcir
decisionson the falsc inform ation Lauerprovîded them Lauerhasnotcountered
.
these show ingsw ith evidence ofhisow n.
Last,Lauer argucsthat,as a hedge fund m anager,he w asnotan tdinvestm ent
adviser''w ithin the telnnsof-the A dvisersA ct. See 15U.S.
C.j80a-2(a)(20)
(detiningççinvestmentadviser'').Laueriscorrectthat,sincem any hedge funds
have a passive investorm odel,notallhedge fund investors are autom atically to be
treated as clients ofa hedge fund adviser.But,asthe Sixth Circuithas
persuasivcly explained,a client-adviserfiduciary relationship can arîse w hen a
hedgefund investorreceives directinvestm cntadvice from a hedge fund adviser
.
Uniled Statesv.Lav,612 F.3d 440,446-47(6th Cir.2010).Though Lauerserved
asthe Funds'investm entadviserby m anaging the Funds'day-to-day activities, he
atso proffered advice directly to the Funds'investorsw hen he hosted m eetings and
teleconferences w ith investors,and when he suggested in the Funds'new slettcr
thathismarketstrategy couldbeatm arketreturns.Thisconductbringshim within
thebotlndsofthe term t'investm entadviser,''forpum oses ofthe AdvisersA ct In
.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 14 of 16
lightofthese conclusions,we affirm the districtcourt's grantofsum m ary
judgmentagainstLauer.
AJI.
Last,Lauerclaim sthatthc districtcourtabused itsdiscretion in finding that
hemustdisgorge$62 million in assets $44 in ill-gotten gainsand $18 million in
prejudgmentinterest.He disputestheamountofill-gotten gainsfound by the
districtcourt. A nd he also arguesthatthe interestaccrblalis inappropriate because
he did nothave controloverthe assetsduring the trial, and the w rong interestrate
w asapplied,
Disgorgementisan equitableremedyintendedtopreventunjustenrichment.
Comnp dity FuturesTrading Comm 'n v.Sidoti,178 F.3d 1132,l138 (11th Cir.
1999).To beentitled to disgorgem ent,theSEC needsonly to produce a
reasonable approxim ation ofthe defendant's ill-gotten gains. See S E.C .v.Calvo,
.
378F.3d 121l,l217(11th Cir.2004)(tbExactitudeisnotarequirement;solongas
the m easure ofdisgorgem entisreasonable,any risk ofuncertainty should fallon
the wrongdoerw hose illegalconductcreated thatuncertainty ''(quotationsmarks
.
and alterationsomittedl).OncetheSEC presentsitsestimate,theburden shiftsto
thedefendantto dem onstrate thatthe SEC did notshow thatitsestim ate w as a
reasonable approxim ation. Id. Butwhen tça defendant'srecord-keeping orlack
thereofhasso obscured m attersthatcalculating the exactam ountofillicitgains
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 15 of 16
cannotbe accom plished w ithoutincuning inordinateexpense,''a courtm ay set
disgorgem entatthe iûm ore readily m easurable proceedsreceived from the
unlawfultransactions.'' ld.at 1217-18.
Evidence supportsthe districtcourt'sfindings regarding ill-gotten gains At
.
the evidentiary hearing,the SEC 'Sexpertw itnessprovided a reasonable
approxim ation ofLauer'sill-gotten gains. Lauerthen failed to rebutthatinitial
show ing by the SEC . A sa result,he bore therisk ofany rem aining uncertainty
being construed againsthim ,particularly in lightofthe expert'stestim ony that
Lancer'sfnancialrecordsAvere lacking essentialinform ation. See Calvo, 378
F,3d at1218. Therefore,the districtcourtdid notabuse itsdiscretion in finding
thatLauerreceived over$43.6 m illion in ill-gotten gains,and thatallofthese
gainswere earned during the fraud period.
Alongwithdisgorgmnent,thedistrictcourtmayalsoawardprejudgment
interest,and hasw ide discretion in m aking thatcalculation. See S.E.C.v Carillo,
.
325 F,3d 1268,1269 (l1th Cir.2003).W ehavenoted thatawardsofprejudgment
interestare com pensatory,notpunitive,and thatthe districteourtshould m ake its
interestdecision through d:an assessm entofthe equities.'' See O sterneçk v E.T,
.
Barwick lndusasInc.,825 F.2d 152t,1536 (l1th Cir.1987). Here,thedistrict
courtdid notabuse itsdiscretion by applying the com m only-used IRS
underpaymentrate.See26 U.S.C.j6621(a)(2)(definingthe IRS undep ayment
13
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2617 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2012 Page 16 of 16
rateastheFederalReserveshort-term interestrateplusthreepercentagepointsl.3
M ile som e ofthislitigation's duration m ay notbe attributable solely to Lauer, the
districtcourtacted w ithin itsdiscretion in deciding thatthe equitiescalled for
disallowingLauerfrom beingunjustlyenrichedbycollecting interestonhisillgotten gains.
AJII.
Forthese reasons,we deny the claim sLauerraised in this appealand affirm
thedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummalyjudgment.
A FFIRM ED .
True
1Aue
CIe U.S.
of
E++ b '
By w
.
-
' ,
V/.
> <.<
Allarza,C* ON Ia
3Othercircuitshave obsenrcd with approvaltheuse ofthisrate. See SEC v.FirstJersey
-
Sec..lnc.-101F.3d l450,l476(2dCir.l996)(rulingthatthisrate'ireasonablyapproximatesone
ofthe benefitsthc defendantderived from itsfraud''and affinming itsuse overthe alternatively
proposed interestrateforTreasuly billsl;SEC v.W irclesslnt'lCorp.,6l7 F.3d 1072, l099(9th
-
Cir.2010)(same).AnddistrictcotlrtsinthisCircuithaveS%withoutcontroversy''alsotaken to
using thisrate. SEC v.Yun,148 F supp.
zd l287,l293(M .D.Fla.2001)'
,see.e.g.,SEC v.Huff,
758F.supp.zd 1288,l363 (S.D.Fla.2010).
,SEC v.Aleksey,2007W L l789113,(M .D.Fla.
Junel9,2007).
.
14