SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. HUANG et al
| SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION |
| BONAN HUANG and NAN HUANG |
| 2:2015cv00269 |
| January 21, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Philadelphia |
| MARK A. KEARNEY |
| Other Statutes: Securities/Commodities |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act |
| Both |
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
111
ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (DOC. 105 ) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 5/9/2016. 5/9/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER THAT JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHAGE COMMISSION AND AGAINST NAN HUANG. NAN HUANG SHALL DISGORGE $4,403,545 REPRESENTING PROFITS GAINED AS A RESULT OF THE INSIDER TRADING CONDUCT FOUND BY THE JURY AT TRIAL, TOGETH ER WITH $288,965 IN PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND A CIVIL PENALTY OF $8,807,090 UNDER 15 U.S.C. 78u-l REPRESENTING DOUBLE THE ILL-GOTTEN GAINS. ETC. THE CLERK SHALL ENTER THIS FINAL JUDGMENT FORTHWITH AND CLOSE THIS MATTER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 2/25/2016. 2/25/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )
|
|
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 9/23/15. 9/23/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL AND COPY TO LEGAL.(jaa, )
|
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 Pennsylvania Eastern 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.
