Securities and Exchange Commission v. weiss
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant: Michael weiss
Case Number: 1:2022cv08064
Filed: September 21, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Paul G Gardephe
Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities
Cause of Action: 12 U.S.C. ยง 22 Securities Fraud
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT MICHAEL WEISS: IT IS HERBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating directly or indirectly, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5], by using any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any nation securities exchange, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security, as further set forth herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant is liable for disgorgement of $10,286, representing net profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $3,328. The Court finds that sending the disgorged funds to the United States Treasury, as ordered below, is consistent with equitable principles. The Court further imposes a civil penalty in the amount of $10,286 pursuant to Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(3)]. Defendant shall satisfy these obligations by paying $23,900 to the Securities and Exchange Commission within 30 days after entry of this Final Judgment, as further set forth. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Final Judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the Consent Motion pending at Dkt. No. 3, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. Motions terminated: #3 CONSENT MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment filed by Securities and Exchange Commission. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 9/28/2022) (mml)
September 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting #6 Motion for Samantha M. Williams to Appear Pro Hac Vice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above-captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 9/28/2022) (mml)
September 27, 2022 Opinion or Order ***NOTICE TO COURT REGARDING PROPOSED JUDGMENT. Document No. #4 Proposed Judgment was reviewed and approved as to form. (km)
September 23, 2022 Opinion or Order >>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. #6 AMENDED MOTION for Samantha M. Williams to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (sgz)
September 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 AMENDED MOTION for Samantha M. Williams to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Affidavit of Samantha M. Williams, #2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, #3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order).(Williams, Samantha)
September 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Case Designated ECF. (vf)
September 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (vf)
September 22, 2022 Opinion or Order CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Paul G. Gardephe. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(vf)
September 22, 2022 Opinion or Order ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CIVIL. CASE OPENING STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION: Notice to attorney David Stoelting. The following case opening statistical information was erroneously selected/entered: Cause of Action code 12:22 Securities Fraud; Dollar Demand 23,900,000. The following correction(s) have been made to your case entry: the Cause of Action code has been modified to 15:78j(b)ss Stockholder Suit; the Dollar Demand has been modified to 24,000. (vf)
September 22, 2022 Opinion or Order >>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE. Notice to RE-FILE Document No. #5 MOTION for Samantha M. Williams to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): missing Certificate of Good Standing from District of Columbia. Re-file the motion as a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - attach the correct signed PDF - select the correct named filer/filers - attach valid Certificates of Good Standing issued within the past 30 days - attach Proposed Order. (sgz)
September 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for Samantha M. Williams to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Affidavit of Samantha M. Williams, #2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, #3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order).(Williams, Samantha) Modified on 9/22/2022 (sgz).
September 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 PROPOSED JUDGMENT. Document filed by Securities and Exchange Commission..(Stoelting, David) Proposed Judgment to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.
September 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 CONSENT MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment . Document filed by Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Consent of Michael Weiss, #2 Exhibit Proposed Consent Judgment).(Stoelting, David)
September 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Stoelting, David)
September 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Michael Weiss. Document filed by Securities and Exchange Commission..(Stoelting, David)

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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. weiss
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission
Represented By: Samantha M Williams
Represented By: David Stoelting
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael weiss
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?