From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kabani & Co. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 13, 2018
No. 17-70786 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2018)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding Appointments Clause claim forfeited when not raised in briefs or before the agency

Summary of this case from Zoran S. v. Berryhill
See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 17-70786

08-13-2018

KABANI & COMPANY, INC.; MICHAEL DEUTCHMAN, CPA; KARIM KHAN MUHAMMAD, CPA; HAMID KABANI, CPA, Petitioners, v. U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

SEC No. 3-16518 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Securities & Exchange Commission Submitted August 9, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. --------

Kabani & Company, Michael Deutchman, Karim Khan Muhammad, and Hamid Kabani petition for review of the SEC's order sustaining sanctions imposed by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB"). We have jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(1). Reviewing the SEC's scienter determination and other factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo, see Gebhart v. SEC, 595 F.3d 1034, 1040, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the SEC's finding that petitioners violated PCAOB Accounting Standard No. 3 ("AS3") with the requisite scienter. The indications of an attempted cover-up—the backdated sign-off dates, the altered metadata, and petitioners' failure during the inspection to disclose the changes made after the documentation completion deadlines—all strongly support an inference of knowledge and intent.

2. The PCAOB proceedings comported with procedural due process. The PCAOB timely commenced disciplinary proceedings, and substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's finding that petitioners lacked good cause to designate a substitute expert after the deadline had passed. Petitioners' concealment of auditing violations and multiple requests for time extensions caused most of the delays in the proceedings, and petitioners fail to show prejudice from the other delays. Petitioners also fail to show prejudice from the publication of the SEC's settlement with Rehan Saeed, which concerns audits of issuers not at issue here and does not raise an inference of wrongdoing by petitioners. A showing of prejudice is essential to their due process claims. See 5 U.S.C. § 706; NLRB v. Heath TEC Div./S.F., 566 F.2d 1367, 1371 (9th Cir. 1978); cf. United States v. Talbot, 51 F.3d 183, 185 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that to establish due process claim based on delay in filing criminal charges, defendant "must prove actual, non-speculative prejudice from the delay").

Petitioners' other procedural complaints are meritless. The PCAOB did not "suppress" evidence in the audit files that petitioners themselves provided. Petitioners were not entitled to a jury because the Seventh Amendment does not apply to administrative proceedings. See Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 418 n.4 (1987). And the SEC considered all relevant circumstances, including the appropriateness of less severe remedies, when upholding the PCAOB's sanctions.

The hearing officer did not improperly place the burden on petitioners to prove that they did not violate AS3. The burden of establishing a fact-based defense to liability falls on the party asserting it, see Olin Corp. v. FTC, 986 F.2d 1295, 1307 (9th Cir. 1993), and defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that Saeed was reviewing non-final versions of the audit work papers. Petitioners cite neither record evidence nor legal authority for their argument that the hearing officer was inexperienced, unfamiliar with their case, and improperly deferential to the agency. This argument is therefore deemed waived. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2010). Likewise, petitioners forfeited their Appointments Clause claim by failing to raise it in their briefs or before the agency. Cf. Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055 (2018) ("'[O]ne who makes a timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the appointment of an officer who adjudicates his case' is entitled to relief.").

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Summaries of

Kabani & Co. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 13, 2018
No. 17-70786 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2018)

holding Appointments Clause claim forfeited when not raised in briefs or before the agency

Summary of this case from Zoran S. v. Berryhill

holding Appointments Clause claim forfeited when not raised in briefs or before the SEC

Summary of this case from Shannon W. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

holding Appointments Clause claim forfeited when not raised in briefs or before the SEC

Summary of this case from Juli K. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

holding an Appointment Clause challenge was forfeited when not timely raised

Summary of this case from McElfresh v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

holding that Appointment Clause challenge was forfeited where not timely raised

Summary of this case from Richard R. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

holding petitioners "forfeited their Appointments Clause claim by failing to raise it in their briefs or before the [Public Company Accounting Oversight Board]"

Summary of this case from Karen S. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

holding that Appointment Clause challenge was forfeited were not timely raised

Summary of this case from Wendy R. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.

holding that Appointments Clause challenge was forfeited because it was not timely raised

Summary of this case from Younger v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

holding that petitioners forfeited their Appointments Clause claim by failing to timely raise it

Summary of this case from Dierker v. Berryhill

finding that "petitioners' forfeited their Appointments Clause claim by failing to raise it in their briefs or before the agency"

Summary of this case from Baglio v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Natosha S. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Leticia T. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Esperanza C. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Roberto H.P. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Eyvonne G.W. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Ahmed Dawood Ahmed E.S. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Roland P. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Yuliya K. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Brickey R. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Alisa A. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Nathan K. v. Saul

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Camilli v. Berryhill

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Eric Burrell M. v. Berryhill

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Joanne G. v. Berryhill

rejecting Lucia challenge because plaintiff did not raise it during administrative proceedings

Summary of this case from Rendon G. v. Berryhill
Case details for

Kabani & Co. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n

Case Details

Full title:KABANI & COMPANY, INC.; MICHAEL DEUTCHMAN, CPA; KARIM KHAN MUHAMMAD, CPA…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 13, 2018

Citations

No. 17-70786 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2018)

Citing Cases

McCary-Banister v. Saul

Moreover, the R & R concludes that the Commissioner's non-Fifth Circuit appellate citations are unavailing,…

Zoran S. v. Berryhill

Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th…

55 Citing Cases