UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 98069 / August 7, 2023

ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT

Release No. 4436 / August 7, 2023

Admin. Proc. File No. 3- 21314

In the Matter of

ALAN J. MARKOWITZ, CPA

ORDER POSTPONING PROCEEDING

On February 28, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order 

instituting administrative proceedings (“OIP”) against Alan J. Markowitz, CPA, pursuant to 

Sections 4C and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 102(e) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice.

1

 On July 11, 2023, the Division of Enforcement filed an 

unopposed motion to stay the proceeding until thirty days after the Supreme Court of the United 

States issues its mandate in SEC v. Jarkesy.

2

 The Division states that it is in the public interest to 

stay this proceeding pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Jarkesy because Markowitz has 

filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commission in the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of New York that seeks relief from the OIP and raises the same 

constitutional challenges that are now before the Supreme Court in Jarkesy.

We construe the Division’s motion as a request for postponement under Commission 

Rule of Practice 161.3 Rule 161 authorizes postponements based on a consideration of, among 

other things, the length of the proceeding to date; the number of postponements, adjournments, 

or extensions already granted; the stage of the proceedings at the time of the request; and any 

1 Alan J. Markowitz, CPA, Exchange Act Release No. 96995, 2023 WL 2299560 (February 

28, 2023).

2 No. 22-859, 2023 WL 4278448 (June 30, 2023) (cert. granted).

3

17 C.F.R. § 201.161; see Francis V. Lorenzo, Exchange Act Release No. 10460, 2018 

WL 994316, at *1 (Feb. 21, 2018) (construing motion for stay as request for postponement under 

Rule of Practice 161).
2

other such matters as justice may require. Here, this proceeding was instituted fewer than six

months ago; we have not previously granted any postponements, adjournments, or extensions in 

this proceeding; and, as yet, no evidentiary hearings have been held. We conclude that a 

postponement of this proceeding is warranted. For the same reasons, we find that a 

postponement of more than 21 days is necessary.4

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and that this proceeding and

any previously prescribed deadlines are postponed indefinitely. It is further ORDERED that no 

later than thirty days after the Supreme Court issues its mandate in Jarkesy, the parties shall file a 

status report discussing the impact of that decision on this proceeding, if any, and any other 

relevant matters.

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated 

authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

 Secretary

4

See Rule of Practice 161(c)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 201.161(c)(1) (“Postponements . . . shall not 

exceed 21 days unless the Commission or the hearing officer states on the record or sets forth in 

a written order the reasons why a longer period of time is necessary.”).