UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 99893 / April 3, 2024

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-21139

In the Matter of 

IRA S. VIENER, CPA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On September 22, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order 

instituting proceedings (“OIP”) against Ira S. Viener, 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 

Viener was served with the OIP on October 14, 2022.2 On December 2, 2022, the parties filed a 

joint statement in which Viener consented to a hearing date later than 60 days from service of the 

OIP.

3

 

As stated in the OIP, Viener’s answer was required to be filed within 20 days of service 

of the OIP.4 As of the date of this order, Viener has not filed an answer. The prehearing 

conference and the hearing are thus continued indefinitely.

1

Ira S. Viener, CPA, Exchange Act Release No. 95884, 2022 WL 4445472 (Sept. 22, 

2022). 

2 The Division of Enforcement filed a declaration of service on October 25, 2022, stating 

that it had served Viener through his attorney, but it was not clear whether that attorney was still 

representing Viener when the OIP was served. See Ira S. Viener, CPA, Exchange Act Release 

No. 96325, 2022 WL 17039046 (Nov. 16, 2022) (asking the Division whether, on October 14, 

2022, Viener’s former counsel was still representing Viener). On December 2, 2022, the 

Division filed a declaration establishing that service had been accomplished by serving Viener’s 

then current (now former) counsel. 

3

See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-3(b) (providing respondent with a public hearing before the 

Commission 30-60 days after the OIP’s service, unless respondent consents to a different hearing 

date). 

4 Viener, 2022 WL 4445472, at *8; Rules of Practice 151(a), 160(b), 220(b), 17 C.F.R. §§ 

201.151(a), 160(b), .220(b).
2

Accordingly, Viener is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by April 17, 2024, why he should 

not be deemed to be in default and why this proceeding should not be determined against him 

due to his failure to file an answer and to otherwise defend this proceeding. Viener’s submission 

shall address the reasons for his failure to timely file an answer and include a proposed answer to 

be accepted in the event that the Commission does not enter a default against him.

When a party defaults, the allegations in the OIP will be deemed to be true and the 

Commission may determine the proceeding against that party upon consideration of the record 

without holding a public hearing.5 The OIP informed Viener that a failure to file an answer 

could result in his being deemed in default and the proceeding determined against him.6

If Viener files a response to this order to show cause, the Division may file a reply within 

14 days after its service. If Viener does not file a response, the Division shall file a motion for 

entry of an order of default and the imposition of remedial sanctions by 5/15/2024. The motion 

for sanctions should address each public interest factor we consider in assessing sanctions in

Rule 102(e) proceedings.

7 The motion should discuss relevant authority relating to the legal 

basis for, and the appropriateness of, the requested sanctions and include evidentiary support 

sufficient to make an individualized assessment of whether those sanctions are in the public 

interest.8 The parties may file opposition and reply briefs within the deadlines provided by the 

Rules of Practice.9 The failure to timely oppose a dispositive motion is itself a basis for a finding 

of default;10 it may result in the determination of particular claims, or the proceeding as a whole, 

5 Rules of Practice 155, 180, 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155, .180.

6 Viener, 2022 WL 4445472, at *8.

7

See, e.g., Thomas D. Melvin, CPA, Exchange Act Release No. 75844, 2015 WL 5172974, 

at *2 (Sept. 4, 2015) (noting that our sanctions analysis is “informed by our consideration of 

public interest factors we traditionally consider in other types of administrative proceedings,” as 

well as “the extent to which a sanction may have a deterrent effect”) (citing Steadman v. SEC, 

603 F.2d 1126, 1140 (5th Cir. 1979), aff’d on other grounds, 450 U.S. 91 (1981)). 

8

See generally Rapoport v. SEC, 682 F.3d 98, 108 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (requiring 

“meaningful explanation for imposing sanctions”); McCarthy v. SEC, 406 F.3d 179, 190 (2d Cir. 

2005) (stating that “each case must be considered on its own facts”); Gary L. McDuff, Exchange 

Act Release No. 74803, 2015 WL 1873119, at *1, *3 (Apr. 23, 2015); Ross Mandell, Exchange 

Act Release No. 71668, 2014 WL 907416, at *2 (Mar. 7, 2014), vacated in part on other 

grounds, Exchange Act Release No. 77935, 2016 WL 3030883 (May 26, 2016); Don Warner 

Reinhard, Exchange Act Release No. 61506, 2010 WL 421305, at *3-4 (Feb. 4, 2010), appeal 

after remand, Exchange Act Release No. 63720, 2011 WL 121451, at *5-8 (Jan. 14, 2011).

9

See Rules of Practice 154, 160, 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.154, .160.

10 See Rules of Practice 155(a)(2), 180(c), 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155(a)(2), .180(c); see, e.g., 

Behnam Halali, Exchange Act Release No. 79722, 2017 WL 24498, at *3 n.12 (Jan. 3, 2017).
3

adversely to the non-moving party and may be deemed a forfeiture of arguments that could have 

been raised at that time.11

The parties’ attention is directed to the e-filing requirements in the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice.12 We also remind the parties that any document filed with the Commission must be 

served upon all participants in the proceeding and be accompanied by a certificate of service.13

Upon review of the filings in response to this order, the Commission will either direct 

further proceedings by subsequent order or issue a final opinion and order resolving the matter.

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

authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

11 See, e.g., McBarron Capital LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 81789, 2017 WL 4350655, 

at *3-5 (Sep. 29, 2017); Bennett Grp. Fin. Servs., LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 80347, 2017 

WL 1176053, at *2-3 (Mar. 30, 2017), abrogated in part on other grounds by Lucia v. SEC, 138 

S. Ct. 2044 (2018); Apollo Publ’n Corp., Securities Act Release No. 8678, 2006 WL 985307, at 

*1 n.6 (Apr. 13, 2006).

12 See Rules of Practice 151, 152(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.151, .152(a) (providing procedure for 

filing papers with the Commission and mandating electronic filing in the form and manner 

posted on the Commission’s website); Instructions for Electronic Filing and Service of 

Documents in SEC Administrative Proceedings and Technical Specifications, 

https://www.sec.gov/efapdocs/instructions.pdf. Parties generally must certify that they have 

redacted or omitted sensitive personal information requirement from any filing. Rule of Practice 

151(e), 17 C.F.R. § 201.151(e).

13 See Rule of Practice 150, 17 C.F.R. § 201.150 (generally requiring parties to serve each 

other with filings); Rule of Practice 151(d), 17 C.F.R. § 201.151(d) (“Papers filed with the 

Commission . . . shall be accompanied by a certificate stating the name of the person or persons 

served, the date of the service, the method of service, and the mailing address or email address to 

which service was made, if not made in person.”).