S.E.C. v. Tecumseh Holdings, et al
| Securities and Exchange Commission |
| John L. Milling and Anthony M. Palovchik |
| 1:2003cv05490 |
| December 22, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Shira A. Scheindlin |
| Securities/Commodities |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act |
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
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 130 MOTION For an Order Determining Disgorement and Civil Monetary Penalties filed by Securities and Exchange Commission. For the foregoing reasons, I grant the SEC's motion for an order imposing on Palovchik and Carone (1) joint and several liability for (i) $7,200,000 in disgorgement and (ii) $3,466,346.48 in pre-judgment interest and (2) first-tier and third-tier civil penalties of $110,000 and $6,500, respectively. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion [Docket No. 130]. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/23/2011) (tro)
|
|
Filing
127
OPINION AND ORDER, that for the aforementioned reasons, the SECs motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to its claim that Milling violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Mill ing is enjoined from future violations and ordered to pay third-tier civil penalties of $110,000. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Milling with respect to the SECs claim that he violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this motion (Docket No. 121) and this case. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/18/11) (pl)
|
|
Filing
104
ORDER that in light of the SEC's letter on 12/23/09, this Court will defer judgment on the SEC's claim that defendant John L. Milling aided and abetted a violation of Section 17(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 until after the close of discovery. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 12/23/09) (cd)
|
|
Filing
103
OPINION AND ORDER: 983836 For the aforementioned reasons, the SEC's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to its claim that Milling violated Section 5 and is denied with respect to its claim that Milling aided and abetted a violati on of Section 17(a). Because the evidence before this Court is insufficient to demonstrate that Milling substantially aided Cantor's alleged violation of Section 17(a), the SEC is directed to inform the Court if it intends to introduce any other evidence in support of its claim that Milling should be held liable for aiding and abetting a violation of Section 17(a). The SEC is also directed to introduce evidence demonstrating when Tecumseh received funds from each of its offerings so that th is Court can determine the pre-judgment interest owed by Milling, and to notify Milling of the submitted evidence so that he has an opportunity to respond. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this motion (Docket No. 93). (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 12/22/2009) (jpo) Modified on 12/23/2009 (ajc).
|
|
Filing
80
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 4/14/09 settlement conference....I will excuse Mr. Milling from serving the Commission, by 5/1/09, with complete disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) et al, if, and only if, he signs, on or before 5/1/09, a birfucated settlement agreement calling for the prompt entry of a consent decree but deferring the question of any monetary settlement pending further negotiation. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton on 4/15/09) (cd)
|
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.
