Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 21-1869 (ACR) MIKHAIL KOKORICH, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brings this action against Defendant Mikhail Kokorich un

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) SECURITIES AND ) EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-1599 (ABJ) ) BINANCE HOLDINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, Case No. 24-cv-2097 (CRC) v. PATRICK ORLANDO, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER A special purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”) is a shell corporation formed for the

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAMES RIVEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2019-0848-PWG ) HAUPPAUGE DIGITAL, INC., ) ) Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1 JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendants Larry Goldstone and Clarence G. Simmons and Memorandum of Law in Support, filed May 21, 2012 (Doc. 35)(“Goldstone & Simmons MTD”); (ii) the Defendant Jane Starrett’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of P

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAMES RIVEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2019-0848-PWG ) HAUPPAUGE DIGITAL, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MASTER’S REPORT Date Submitted: October 26, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States District Judge. Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) commenced this action on October 9, 2013, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder;1 Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1), (3); and Section 5 of the Securitie

778 F.Supp.2d 1320 (2011) SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth R. KRAMER, et al., Defendants. Case No. 8:09-cv-455-T-23TBM. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. April 1, 2011. *1321 Amie Riggle Berlin, Drew Douglas Panahi, James Michael Carlson, Securities & Exchange Commission, Mia

Dissent by Chief Judge THOMAS OPINION PAEZ, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, we consider Plaintiff-Appellant Retail Digital Network, LLC’s (“RDN”) First Amendment challenge to California Business and Professions Code § 25503(f)-(h). Section 25503(f)-(h) prohibits alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers from providing anything of value to retailers in exchange for advertising their alcohol

632 F.Supp.2d 91 (2009) UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Richard F. SELDEN, Defendant. Civil Action No. 05-11805-NMG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. June 24, 2009. *93 Robert B. Baker, David E. Butler, Richard Mann Harper, II, Franklin C. Huntington, IV, Securities and Exchange Comm

Filed 12/30/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR LETTERMAN DIGITAL ARTS LTD., Plaintiff and Appellant, A156315 v. CITY AND COUNTY OF (City & County of San Francisco SAN FRANCISCO et al., Super. Ct. No. CGC-16-555649

812 F.Supp.2d 390 (2011) In re DIGITAL MUSIC ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: All Actions. No. 06 MD 1780(LAP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. July 18, 2011. *396 Opinion & Order LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief Judge: Before the Court is a joint motion to dismiss a class-acti

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. On March 3, 2012, the plaintiffs Intelligent Systems, LLC (“IDS”); Russ & Russ PC Defined Benefit Pension Plan (“the Plan”); and Jay Edmond Russ (“Russ”), all individually and as assignees of Jack Jacobs, Robert Moe, Michael Ryan and Martin McFeely, (all collectively “the Plaintiffs”) commenced this action by filing a Complaint against the defend

454 F.Supp.2d 692 (2006) Dominic MUSARRA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIGITAL DISH, INC., Defendant. No. C2-05-545. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. September 28, 2006. *693 *694 John Spenceley Marshall, Edward Reilley Forman, Louis Abraham Jacobs, Steven D. Dransfield, Ma

(2008) In Re: DIGITAL MUSIC ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: All Actions. No. 06 MDL No. 1780 (LAP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 9, 2008. OPINION LORETTA A. PRESKA, J. This multidistrict litigation involves allegations that Bertelsmann, Inc., SONY BMG Music Entertainment, Sony Corporation of America,

625 F.Supp.2d 728 (2008) NORTHBROOK DIGITAL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. VENDIO SERVICES, INC., Defendant. No. 07-CV-2250 (PJS/JJG). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. June 9, 2008. *731 James K. Nichols and Peter M. Lancaster, Dorsey & Whitney LLP; Mark A. Wolfe, Northbrook Digital LLC, for plaintiff. Felicia J. Boyd,

USCA1 Opinion United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit ____________________ No. 95-1995 MERRY LOU SHAW, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v.

784 F.Supp. 1059 (1992) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Robert HASHO, Benjamin M. Hasho, William X. Mecca, Robert B. Yule, Kevin B. Sullivan, David C. Dever, Richard A. Chennisi, Aurelio Vuono, Philip Falcone, and Michael F. Umbro, Defendants. No. 90 Civ. 7953. United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 13, 1992.

TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, CYR and LYNCH, Circuit Judges. LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, purchasers of the securities of Digital Equipment Corp., appeal from the district court’s dismissal of two consolidated class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Both complaints assert that there were misleading statements and non-disclosures

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 22-JAN-2024 08:04 AM Dkt. 77 MO