Automated Matching Sys. v. SEC, No. 14-3698 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAMSE appealed the Commission's final order denying AMSE's application for a limited volume exemption from registration as a national securities exchange under section 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et. seq., and the district court’s dismissal of AMSE’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the Commission’s determination that it did not have discretion to grant a low-volume exemption to AMSE because it proposed to act as a self-regulatory organization (SRO) was reasonable; the Commission reasonably concluded that an exempt exchange could not be an SRO and that permitting an exchange to wield the broad powers of an SRO when the Commission is not statutorily required to exercise oversight would contradict the careful balance prescribed by Congress to protect the public interest and investors; and, therefore, the Commission's conclusion is well-reasoned and does not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court also concluded that AMSE has failed to establish circumstances permitting for district court review. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and affirmed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Petitioner challenges an order of the Commission denying its application for a limited volume exemption from registration as a national securities exchange under Section 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the district court's dismissal of the petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction; the Commission reasonably concluded that the Act does not permit an exempt exchange to operate with the self-regulatory powers petitioner proposed in its application; the district court did not err in determining it did not have jurisdiction to hear petitioner's claims alleging procedural deficiencies in the Commission's work or petitioner's claim for a declaratory judgment.
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.