context: The SEC says-their-lifetimes, but with no justification beyond the asserted egregiousness of Defendants' conduct. Section 78u(d)(2),-however, is not an all-or-nothing standard] it gives courts the discretion to grant an officer-or-director bar "for such period of time as [the -court] shall determine;" And Patel suggests that lifetime bans may not be warranted. where a fixed-term bar might suffice.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 595 F.Supp.2d 45, 45-46
citation_a.parenthetical: ordering five-year bar despite defendant's knowing and deliberate violations because "a permanent bar ... is far too draconian a remedy"
citation_a.sentence: See Johnson, 595 F.Supp.2d at 45-46 (ordering five-year bar despite defendant’s knowing and deliberate violations because “a permanent bar ... is far too draconian a remedy”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 61 F.3d 142, 142
citation_b.parenthetical: repeat offenders are those who committed securities violations outside of the ones giving rise to the present litigation
citation_b.sentence: Patel, 61 F.3d at 142, Given the award of a permanent -bar on securities-law, violations and the fact that neither Defendant is a repeat offender, see SEC v. Bankosky, No. 12-1012, 2012 WL 1849000, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2012) (repeat offenders are those who committed securities violations outside of the ones giving rise to the present litigation), aff'd, 716 F.3d 45 (2d Cir.2013), the Court concludes that, especially given her age, a ten-year bar for Grace and a five-year bar for Saito are sufficient and appropriate.