SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. DURHAM et al
| SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION |
| JAMES F. COCHRAN, TIMOTHY S. DURHAM and RICK D. SNOW |
| 1:2011cv00370 |
| March 16, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Securities/Commodities |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 77 Securities Fraud |
| None |
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
136
ORDER - This matter is before the Court on a Notice of and Request for Additional Disgorgement filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"). [Filing No. 122 .] The filing of a "notice" is not a procedural v ehicle recognized as a means of obtaining relief. Rather, Rule 7(b) provides that "[a] request for a court order must be made by motion." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 7(b). As such, the Commission's Notice and Request, 122 , is DENIED. Final judgment shall issue accordingly. (See Order). Copies to Timothy S. Durham and James F. Cochran via U.S. mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/26/2019.(JDH)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER - Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment, 111 , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Commission's Motion is GRANTED as it relates to payments identified herein, and the Mr. Durham is ORDERED to pay disgorgement in the amou nt of $620,350.00, plus prejudgment interest at the rate set forth in 17 C.F.R. § 201.600. In all other regards, the Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Should the Commission wish to proceed to an evidentiary hearing as to additional disgorgement, the Commission shall file a Motion to that effect by Friday, July 6, 2018. Otherwise, the Court will enter final judgment. ***SEE ORDER*** (Copy sent to Defendants via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/29/2018. (JDC)
|
|
Filing
105
ORDER - In March 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") initiated this case against Defendant Timothy Durham and others alleging securities fraud. [Filing No. 1 .] On October 31, 2017, Mr. Durham filed a Motion to Recu se the Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson, [Filing No. 92 ], which requests that I recuse myself "from any and all matters pertaining to the above referenced matter for the appearance of bias and actual bias as set forth in Ground 6 of Durham 9;s previously filed 2255 Motion to vacate his criminal conviction and sentence (Case No. 1:17-03590-jms-dml) and accompanying Motion to Recuse Magnus-Stinson (Docket No. 8)." [Filing No. 92 at 1.] After randomly reassigning the Motion to R ecuse and considering the findings of the District Judge to whom the motion was referred, the Court now rules on the motion as discussed below. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the circumstances Mr. Durham presents in his Motion to Recuse do not demonstrate an appearance of bias and that Mr. Durham's due process rights have not been violated, and will not be violated, by the undersigned continuing to preside over this matter. Based on these findings, and on Judge Pratt's finding that Mr. Durham has not demonstrated any actual bias, the Court DENIES Mr. Durham's Motion to Recuse, 92 . SEE ORDER. Copy to defendants via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/26/2018. (APD)
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 68 Motion for Summary Judgment - The Commission's Motion is GRANTED as it relates to Parts I, III, and IV of the Commission's requested relief as follows: Mr. Durham is permanently ENJOINED from future violations of the Securities Acts pursuant to Part I; Mr. Durham is ORDERED to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,300,000 pursuant to Part III; and Mr. Durham is permanently ENJOINED from acting as an officer or director pursuant to Parts IV. The Commission's Motion is DENIED as it relates to Part II of the Commission's requested relief for disgorgement. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge convene a status conference with the parties at his earliest convenience in order to establish a plan to bring this case to a conclusion on the issue of disgorgement. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/18/2017. (JRB)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER - The Court DENIES Mr. Durham's and Mr. Cochran's requests to dismiss this action with prejudice. [Filing No. 40 (Mr. Durham's "Status Report" requesting dismissal); Filing No. 43 (Mr. Cochran's Motion to Dis miss).] The Court requests that the assigned magistrate judge conduct a pre-trial conference to confirm whether Mr. Durham filed a petition for writ of certiorari from his second appeal. If he did not, the Court requests that the assigned magistr ate judge set a briefing schedule for the SEC's anticipated motion for summary judgment. The Clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect Mr. Durham's current address, as set forth in the distribution list below. Each Defendant is reminded that it is his obligation to update the Court with his current address at all times. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/9/2016. Copies sent to Defendants via US Mail. (GSO)
|
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 Indiana 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.
