Court Opinion

ID: 9475883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:41:35.497573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:00.512983
License: Public Domain

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Because I do not agree that the date typed in the caption is necessarily the date of entry under 15 U.S.C. § 80b-13(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(l), I would not find New-ell’s petition to be untimely and would reach the merits. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.
The statutes instructing that an aggrieved party has sixty days from the date of entry of an SEC order to petition for review of that order do not define the word “entry.” “Entry” under the statutes is purportedly defined, however, in 17 C.F.R. § 201.22(k). That regulation states that the date of entry shall be the date reflected in the caption of the order and that the order will be available for inspection from the date of entry.
The problem with the majority’s decision is that it upholds the first part of the regulation and ignores the second. Octo*1262ber 3, 1985, is the date typed in the caption of the SEC order in question. However, the SEC did not make the order public until October 8. Thus, the SEC did not comply with the second part of the regulation requiring that orders be made public from the date of entry.
Holding Newell to the date typed in the order’s caption but not holding the SEC to its obligation to make the order public as of the caption date not only violates the terms of the regulation but also overlooks the message stated in Lile v. Securities Exchange Commission, 324 F.2d 772 (9th Cir.1963). There we declared that the 60-day period should not commence until there has been “notice to all the world.” Id. at 773. See Medical Committee for Human Rights v. Securities Exchange Commission, 432 F.2d 659, 664 (D.C.Cir.1970), vacated for mootness on other grounds, 404 U.S. 403, 92 S.Ct. 577, 30 L.Ed.2d 560 (1972) (suggesting that the 60-day period does not begin until “written information regarding the basis of the decision was available.”).
I suggest that a fairer interpretation of 17 C.F.R. § 201.22(k) would make the caption date the entry date when the order is made public on or before the caption date; otherwise, the entry date should be the date when the order is made public.