US Securities v. Smith, No. 06-3019 (6th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0895n.06 Filed: December 14, 2006 No. 06-3019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRADLEY T. SMITH, CONTINENTAL MIDWEST FINANCIAL, INC., SCIOTO NATIONAL, INC., BANCSHAREHOLDERS OF AMERICA, INC., and BANCSHARE INVESTORS BROKERAGE, INC., ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Defendants-Appellants. _________________________________ Before: DAUGHTREY and MCKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and REEVES, District Judge.* PER CURIAM. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) brought this action against the Defendants-Appellants, Bradley T. Smith ( Smith ), Continental Midwest Financial, Inc. ( Continental ), and Scioto National, Inc. ( Scioto ), and the relief * The Honorable Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. -1- Defendants-Appellants, Bancshareholders of America, Inc., and Bancshare Investors Brokerage, Inc., for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with two private offerings of Continental and Scioto s common stock. The district court granted the SEC s motion for summary judgment against the Defendants, finding that Smith, Scioto and Continental acted with the requisite scienter in making misrepresentations of material facts in violation of Section 17(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The district court also granted summary judgment against Smith under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, finding that he was liable as a control person for Continental and Scioto s violations of the Securities Exchange Act. After a careful review of the record, the parties briefs, counsels arguments, and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the SEC was entitled to summary judgment on its claims. Because the district court s opinion accurately sets out the law governing these issues and clearly states the reasons for its conclusions, issuance of a more lengthy opinion in this case would not serve a useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court s opinion, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
