Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cohmad Securities Corporation et al
| Securities and Exchange Commission |
| Cohmad Securities Corporation, Maurice J. Cohn, Marcia B. Cohn and Robert M. Jaffe |
| 1:2009cv05680 |
| June 22, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Unassigned |
| None |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act |
| 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
28
OPINION AND ORDER: #98511 Jaffes motion (Docket No. 12) is granted, and Cohmad and the Cohns motion (Docket No. 17) is granted in part and denied in part. In particular, the claims for securities fraud (Claims One through Four) are dismissed as agai nst all defendants. The claims for aiding and abetting violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act, and Rule 206(4)-3 thereunder, (Claim Five) and Section 15(b)(7) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 15b7-1 thereunder, (Claim Seven) are dismissed as a gainst Cohmad and the Cohns. Cohmad and the Cohns motion is otherwise denied. The SEC is granted leave to replead its defective claims by filing an amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this opinion and order. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 2/1/10) (ae) Modified on 2/2/2010 (ajc). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/2/2010: # 1 Main Document) (ae). Modified on 2/2/2010 (ae).
|
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.
