SEC v CITY OF ANAHEIM, CITY OF IRVINE, et al


\|

Keywords & Phrases

CaseNo: 34-42140, Defendant: City of Anaheim, City of Irvine, Irvine Unified School District, North Orange County Community College District, and Orange County Board of Education, Plaintiff: SEC, State: DC Washington D.C., UniqueCaseRef: SEC>34-42140, Evidence, Law Judge, North Orange, Commission, Practice, Matter, Exclude, Motion, Administering, Review, Interlocutory, Exchange Act, Irvine, Respondent North, Certification, Ruling, Order Instituting, Orange County, Order Granting Respondent, Relating, Cir, Hereby, Docket, Interlocutory Appeals, Jury, Offering, Admission, Pursuant, Amend, Controlling , ContentID: 120245608

Case Documents

1999-11-16

SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 112347

5 pages
HTML

Total Documents: 1 document , 5 pages

Price: $ 19.95

IVESLCD01 KGI0001

1 . SEC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

LAW JUDGE
NORTH ORANGE
COMMISSION
PRACTICE
MATTER
EXCLUDE
MOTION
ADMINISTERING
REVIEW
INTERLOCUTORY
EXCHANGE ACT
IRVINE
RESPONDENT NORTH
CERTIFICATION
RULING
ORDER INSTITUTING
ORANGE COUNTY
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT
RELATING
CIR
HEREBY
DOCKET
INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS
JURY
OFFERING
ADMISSION
PURSUANT
AMEND
CONTROLLING

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington D.C.

   SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   Rel. No. 42140 / November 16, 1999

   Admin. Proc. File No. 3-9739
____________________________________________

            In the Matter of

             CITY OF ANAHEIM,

             CITY OF IRVINE,

        IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

            NORTH ORANGE COUNTY
         COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,

                   and

        ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
____________________________________________

   ORDER VACATING GRANT OF RESPONDENT NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY
   COLLEGE DISTRICT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

   The administrative law judge to whom this matter initially was
   assigned has certified to the Commission, for review, her
   interlocutory ruling granting the motion of respondent North Orange
   County Community College District ("North Orange") to exclude certain
   evidence from the hearing in this matter.

   The Commission instituted proceedings against North Orange charging
   that it committed fraud in a 1994 offering to the public of certain
   taxable notes (the "1994 Notes"). The Division of Enforcement has
   sought to introduce documents and testimony relating to a 1993 issue
   of taxable notes by North Orange (the "1993 Notes"), as well as
   testimony relating to a 1993 offering of notes by the City of Irvine,
   California ("Irvine Notes"). The Division contends that the 1993 Notes
   and the Irvine Notes are substantially similar to the 1994 Notes at
   issue here, and that the discussions of North Orange officials
   surrounding the 1993 Notes and the reactions of certain institutional
   investors to the 1993 Notes and the Irvine Notes will aid us in
   determining several of the key issues in this case. North Orange has
   moved to exclude all of the evidence relating to the 1993 securities
   offerings as irrelevant. The law judge agreed with North Orange and

SNIPPETS:

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

ORDER VACATING GRANT OF RESPONDENT NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT'S MOTION TO

The administrative law judge to whom this matter initially was assigned has certified to the

The Commission instituted proceedings against North Orange charging that it committed fraud

The Division of Enforcement has sought to introduce documents and testimony relating to a

On the Division's motion, the law judge certified her ruling for interlocutory review,

The Division asks that we vacate the law judge's decision excluding evidence relating to the

A law judge may certify his or her interlocutory rulings for review under Rule of Practice

Because the admission of the Division's evidence is not a question of law that controls the

We are charged by Rule of Practice 103with administering our Rules of Practice so as to

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the certification of the law judge's interlocutory Order

No. 36574, 60 SEC Docket 2719;, Exchange Act, 64 SEC Docket 2160.

Although Rule 400provides that the Commission will not entertain interlocutory appeals "in

, 312 U.S. 126, 155 (exclusionary rules for jury trials inapplicable to administrative

That such evidence might be excluded in a jury trial does not preclude or militate against


\|