NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION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 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
FINANCIAL, INC., SCIOTO STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NATIONAL, INC., SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
BANCSHAREHOLDERS OF
AMERICA, INC., and BANCSHARE
INVESTORS BROKERAGE, INC.,
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-