Discovery Minerals LTD (DSCR)

[Ryan8]

I wonder what Fred Schiemann's handle is?

Any suggestions JB

Fred Schiemann
The Commission announced that on June 16, 1993 the Honorable Edward C. Reed, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Nevada issued a permanent injunction against Fred V. Schiemann (Schiemann) of Reno, Nevada. The order enjoins Schiemann from aiding and abetting future violations of the antifraud provisions. Schiemann consented to the issuance of the permanent injunction without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint. The issue of the amount of disgorgement was left open. The complaint alleged that while acting as a certified public accountant for the company, Pacific Waste Management, Inc. (Pacific Waste), Schiemann fraudulent inflated assets of the company in two audited financial statements distributed to the public and market makers. The inflated audited financial statements were relied on by an attorney to issue an opinion that those selling the securities of Pacific Waste need not comply with Rule lSc2-6. Broker-dealers relied on the opinion and did not comply with Rule 15c2-6 when soliciting the securities of Pacific Waste to their retail customers. Schiemann was aware that these audited financial statements would be relied on for this purpose. [SEC v. Pacific Waste Management, Inc .. et al., Civil No. CV-N-93-232-ECR, USDC Nevada] (LR-13704)

Source:
https://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1993/dig071393.pdf

Permanent Injunctions:
There is a balancing test that courts typically employ in determining whether to issue an injunction. To seek a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must pass the four-step test: (1) that the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the injury; (3) that the remedy in equity is warranted upon consideration of the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant; and (4) that the permanent injunction being sought would not hurt public interest. See, e.g., Weinberger v. Romero—Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311–313, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982); Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987). The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 1839, 164 L. Ed. 2d 641 (2006)

In balancing the damages to the plaintiff and the defendant and the public interest, the courts balance the relative harm and benefit to both the defendant and the plaintiff if the injunction is granted. A leading decision, Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., ruled against a permanent injunction against the cement company in a nuisance claim by the homeowners in the neighborhood. In reaching the decision, the court factored in the factory’s apparent inability to develop improved abatement methods, and the defendant’s 45 million dollar capital investment in the factory, both of which are factors by which the defendant would be hurt significantly hurt by the injunction. See 26 N.Y.2d 219 (2nd Cir., 1970).

Also, in some jurisdictions, courts take into consideration good faith of the parties. If it seems that the defendant is acting in good faith, by doing all that it can to abate the nuisance, the court may reflect those efforts in the terms of its order. In contrast, if the court believes the defendant is acting in bad faith, the court will show little sympathy and rule in favor of permanent injunction. See, e.g., Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Serv. Dist., 965 P.2d 433, 440 (Or. Ct. App.1998); Holubec v. Brandenburger, 58 S.W.3d 201, 213-14 (Tex. App. 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 111 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2003).