United States Securities & Exchange Commission v Manterfield

United States Securities & Exchange Commission v Manterfield

The SEC established a good arguable case for fraud, demonstrated risk of dissipation, and as a public regulatory body is entitled to dispensation from cross-undertaking in damages. The relief sought is not penal but compensatory, and the freezing order does not enforce foreign penal law. Therefore, the freezing order should be continued.

Parties
Claimant: United States Securities and Exchange Commission; Defendant: Glenn Anthony Manterfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Continuation of Freezing Order
Outcome
freezing order continued
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Enforcement of Foreign Penal Law, Disgorgement, Article 6 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Claimant

Glenn Anthony Manterfield

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Continuation of Freezing Order

  1. 1 Whether SEC has a good arguable case for a freezing injunction
  2. 2 Risk of dissipation of assets by defendant
  3. 3 Whether SEC should be required to give a cross-undertaking in damages

Ratio Decidendi

The SEC established a good arguable case for fraud, demonstrated risk of dissipation, and as a public regulatory body is entitled to dispensation from cross-undertaking in damages. The relief sought is not penal but compensatory, and the freezing order does not enforce foreign penal law. Therefore, the freezing order should be continued.

Court Disposition

freezing order continued

Orders

  • Continuation of freezing order against Glenn Anthony Manterfield’s assets