Securities and Exchange Commission v. Davis, Jr.

Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant: H. Thomas Davis, Jr.
Case Number: 7:2012cv00275
Filed: September 20, 2012
Court: North Carolina Eastern District Court
Office: Southern Division Office
County: NEWHANOVER
Presiding Judge: Louise Wood Flanagan
Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
September 24, 2012 2 Opinion or Order of the Court FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Securities and Exchange Commission against H. Thomas Davis, Jr. - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/24/2012. (Baker, C.)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 North Carolina Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Davis, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission
Represented By: Paul T. Kim
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: H. Thomas Davis, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.