InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 2564
Posts 299399
Boards Moderated 30
Alias Born 04/12/2001

Re: The Rainmaker post# 18341

Sunday, 07/31/2016 6:31:54 PM

Sunday, July 31, 2016 6:31:54 PM

Post# of 68744
Tsk. Let me clarify:

The SEC got a formal Order of Investigation to look into Tracy, Ruettiger, and Securities Compliance on 28 October 2015. Tracy hired Alex Rue to represent him, Ruettiger, and the company. Rue apparently screwed up for months, promising to send the documentation that had been subpoenaed, but somehow never getting round to doing it. Tracy says this was entirely Rue's fault; we haven't heard from Rue himself.

Finally, on 15 June 2016, the SEC applied to the Atlanta federal district court for an order to show cause: that is, for Tracy to explain why he hadn't complied with the subpoenas he'd been sent, and for an order requiring him to comply.

Tracy subsequently fired Rue and retained new counsel. On 13 July, a response was filed with the Atlanta court:

https://www.scribd.com/document/319812990/Tracy-Response-Doc-5

...and now everyone learns the judge dismissed the complaints.

No complaint has been filed. The SEC's subpoenas are administrative subpoenas. Tracy and Ruettiger have agreed to comply, and Tracy made "an initial production" on 11 July.



As a result, the judge terminated the "miscellaneous case". That was the application for an order to show cause. Its case number was 1:16-mi-00041-WSD-CMS.

Note that he added that "all future filings to occur in 1:16-cv-2768-WSD-CMS". That is a new and different case. The first was a "miscellaneous case", as the "mi" indicates. The new one is a civil lawsuit, as the "cv" indicates.

So far, only the parties have been named; it seems a complaint has not yet been filed. The case itself was opened on 29 July, last Friday:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/15359633/Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_v_Securities_Compliance_Group,_Ltd_et_al

You can see here that they're two different actions:

https://dockets.justia.com/search?query=Securities+and+Exchange+Commission+v.+Securities+Compliance+Group%2C+Ltd.+et+al