Securities and Exchange Commission v. Santillo et al
| Securities and Exchange Commission |
| Perry Santillo, Christopher Parris, Paul Anthony Larocco, John Piccarreto, Thomas Brenner, First Nationle Solution, LLC, Percipience Global Corporation and United RL Capital Services |
| 1:2018cv05491 |
| June 19, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| John G. Koeltl |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 77 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
169
ORDER The above-referenced action has been referred to me for settlement purposes. (Dkt. 167.) Counsel for defendant John Piccarreto has informed the Court that he is in the process of contacting his client, who is incarcerated at FCI McKean, to discuss plaintiff's settlement proposal, and hopes to speak to his client next week. It is hereby ORDERED that, no later than May 31, 2024, defendant Piccarreto's counsel must file a status letter, updating the Court as to whether he has discussed settlement with his client, and - if he has not yet done so - when he expects to speak to his client. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 5/17/2024) (jca)
|
|
Filing
165
FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT PERRY SANTILLO: The Securities and Exchange Commission having filed a Complaint and Defendant Perry Santillo having entered a general appearance; consented to the Court's jurisdiction over Defendant and the su bject matter of this action in the attached affirmation entitled Consent of Defendant Perry Santillo (hereinafter, "the Consent"); consented to entry of this Final Judgment; waived findings of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any rig ht to appeal from this Final Judgment. There being no just reason for delay, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Judgment forthwith and without further notice. Perry Santillo terminated. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 4/17/2024) (ate)
|
|
Filing
162
ORDER: On January 12, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to submit proposed final judgments for Defendants Perry Santillo and Thomas Brenner. ECF No. 153. The Court signed a Final Judgment as to Mr. Brenner on February 1, 2024. ECF No. 161. The parties are directed to provide an update to the Court on the status of the proposed final judgement for Mr. Santillo by April 22, 2024. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 4/15/2024) (ks)
|
|
Filing
161
FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT THOMAS BRENNER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADWDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the &quo t;Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exch ange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security: As further set forth in this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Consent is incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein, a nd that Defendant shall comply with all of the undertakings and agreements set forth therein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Fi nal Judgment. There being no just reason for delay, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Judgment forthwith and without further notice. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 2/1/2024) Thomas Brenner terminated. (ks)
|
|
Filing
147
ORDER granting 146 Letter Motion to Stay re: 146 LETTER MOTION to Stay re: 144 Order Staying Case Letter Motion to Lift Stay and Status Report addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl from Sushila Rao Pentapati, Esq. dated November 6, 2023. Application granted. The stay lifted. The parties should provide a status report by 1/12/2024. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 11/7/2023) (tg)
|
|
Filing
144
ORDER: The Clerk is directed to mark this matter stayed. The Court is awaiting additional materials in this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/31/2023) (ama)
|
|
Filing
135
ORDER granting 131 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. No objection having been filed, this application is granted. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/13/2022) (ks)
|
|
Filing
132
ORDER with respect to 131 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. Any response to this application should be filed by July 12, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/5/2022) (jca)
|
|
Filing
106
ORDER: The SEC is requested to provide a status report to the Court on this case by April 27, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 4/16/2020) (ks)
|
|
Filing
69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 60 MOTION to Stay re: 1 Complaint, . filed by Thomas Brenner. The Court will grant a stay of Brenner's deposition for 90 days. The motion for a stay is otherwise denied. To the extent not specifically addressed, the arguments are either moot or without merit. The Clerk of Court is directed to close Docket Number 60. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 11/2/18) (yv)
|
|
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 38 MOTION to Intervene . filed by Doris Olsen. The movant's motion to intervene is denied. The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed, the arguments are either moot or without merit. The Clerk is directed to close docket number 38. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 9/17/18) (yv)
|
|
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER. The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, any remaining arguments are either moot or without merit. For the reasons explained above, Santillo's moti on to amend the asset freeze order is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Santillo is authorized to create a new bank account in which to deposit any assets, past or future, generated by the rental units in the Utica, New York, building, provided that the assets in that bank account are used only to pay any bills, expenses, and other ordinary and necessary costs associated with the Utica building; Santillo is authorized to create a new bank account in which to deposit assets, past o r future, generated by Boyle Trucking, provided that the assets in that bank account are used only to pay bills, expenses, and other ordinary and necessary costs associated with Boyle Trucking; Santillo is required to create a new bank account in wh ich to deposit any revenue generated by commissions on insurance sales by High Point received after the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, and he is authorized to draw the lesser of 5% or $5,000 each month from High Point's mon thly revenue to pay for living expenses; Santillo's assets will not be unfrozen to pay for attorneys' fees and costs in this or any other civil action; and Santillo may apply for modification of this asset freeze order in the event that a ny criminal proceeding has been initiated against him. The current modified asset freeze order and the original asset freeze order are subject to future modification on the basis of good cause shown. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/11/18) (yv)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
