Theodore W. Urban, Exchange Act Rel. 63456, December 7, 2010
The Commissions chief administrative law judge dismissed proceedings against Urban in this initial decision. In her decision Judge Murray found that no sanctions were appropriate for alleged failure to supervise. The Division of enforcement filed an appeal.
Urban's motion for summary affirmance was denied by the Commission. Judge Murray found that Glantz, a rep supervised by Urban committed fraud. However, she found that Urban did not fail to properly supervise him because Urban acted reasonably and sought to have Glantz fired. She found that Urban could rely on another firm executive to exercise heightened supervision over Glantz.
Urban argued that the judge's decision relied heavily on credibility findings which are entitled to great weight on appeal.
Not surprisingly the Commission denied the motion. It has refused motions by the Division on numerous occasions involving proceedings based on criminal convictions or previous injunctions where the results were a virtual foregone conclusion.
Lexisnexis
