The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement action against Paul Marcus and a network of family trusts in a complex securities fraud case that has been winding through the federal courts for nearly a decade.
In a summary order issued Jan. 14, 2026, a three-judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston and Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs and Barrington D. Parker upheld the SEC's position in the case known as *SEC v. Marcus*. The ruling consolidated multiple appeals filed between 2017 and 2024, bringing closure to one of the longest-running enforcement actions in the Second Circuit.
The case centers on Paul Marcus and several family trusts bearing the Marcus name, including the Deane J. Marcus Trust, the Steven E. Marcus Trust, the Cheryl Marcus-Podhaizer Trust, and the Eve S. Marcus Children's Trust. These entities were named as interested parties-appellants in the consolidated proceedings.
The court's summary order, which carries the notation that "rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect," represents the culmination of litigation that began with the lead case numbered 17-2534. Three additional cases were consolidated into the proceedings: 17-2537, 17-2681, and 24-2751, demonstrating the complexity and scope of the SEC's enforcement effort.
Also named in the litigation were several additional parties, including Lisa Meyer, Debra Mayer, and members of the Heitkoenig family: Alfred C. Heitkoenig, Elna Charlotte Heitkoenig, and Maakie Heitkoenig. These individuals were classified as interested parties-appellants in the proceeding.
The case also encompassed a web of investment-related entities that were named as defendants-appellants. These include Amerindo Investment Advisors Inc., Alberto William Vilar, Gary Alan Tanaka, Amerindo Advisors UK Limited, Amerindo Management Inc., and several Amerindo investment funds. The international scope of the alleged scheme is evident from the inclusion of entities such as Techno Raquia, S.A., and Amerindo Investment Advisors, Inc. (Panama).
The SEC was represented by Senior Appellate Counsel Emily True Parise, working alongside Acting General Counsel Jeffrey B. Finnel and Tracey A. Hardin. The presence of senior SEC appellate counsel underscores the significance of the case to the commission's enforcement priorities.
Summary orders like the one issued in *Marcus* are considered non-precedential, meaning they cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases. However, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and the Second Circuit's Local Rule 32.1.1 do permit citation to summary orders filed after Jan. 1, 2007, provided they are cited to either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database with the notation "summary order."
The Second Circuit's affirmance of the SEC's position represents a victory for federal securities regulators in their ongoing efforts to combat complex financial schemes involving family trusts and investment advisors. The case highlights the challenges posed by multi-jurisdictional enforcement actions involving both domestic and international entities.
The lengthy duration of the case, spanning nearly nine years from the initial 2017 filing to the 2026 resolution, reflects the complexity of modern securities enforcement. The consolidation of four separate appeal numbers demonstrates how such cases can spawn multiple proceedings as different aspects of the enforcement action wind through the courts.
For the defendants and interested parties, the Second Circuit's summary order represents the end of their appellate options within the federal court system. The affirmance means that any lower court judgments, penalties, or injunctive relief ordered by the district court will remain in effect.
The case also illustrates the SEC's continued focus on enforcement actions involving family trust structures, which can sometimes be used to obscure beneficial ownership and complicate regulatory oversight. The involvement of multiple Marcus family trusts suggests the commission's investigation uncovered a coordinated scheme involving related parties.
While the summary order format means the Second Circuit did not issue a detailed opinion explaining its reasoning, the affirmance indicates the appeals court found no reversible error in the lower court proceedings. This outcome strengthens the SEC's hand in future enforcement actions involving similar fact patterns.
The resolution of *SEC v. Marcus* comes at a time when federal securities regulators are increasingly focused on complex investment schemes that span multiple jurisdictions and involve sophisticated corporate structures designed to evade detection.