| Followers | 436 |
| Posts | 41282 |
| Boards Moderated | 0 |
| Alias Born | 10/07/2010 |
Monday, April 10, 2023 3:52:14 PM
Nothing burger? Perhaps not to the SEC since it involved an investigation of a company he held shares in.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26578939/LaMountain_v_United_States_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission
What was he hiding he didn’t want the SEC to see?
LaMountain v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Rhode Island District Court
Judge: William E Smith
Referred: Patricia A Sullivan
Case #: 1:19-mc-00001
Case Filed: Jan 02, 2019
Terminated: Feb 05, 2019
Docket
Parties
Docket last updated: 04/09/2023 11:59 PM EDT
Tuesday, February 05, 2019
order Order on Motion to Quash Tue 02/05 1:48 PM
TEXT ORDER: After a careful review of the parties' filings, the Court finds there is a demonstrable basis to believe the SEC is pursuing a legitimate investigation. The SEC is charged with investigating possible violations of U.S. securities laws and here has issued a formal order of investigation. Moreover, it is reasonable to conclude that the subpoena seeks bank records that could contain information relevant to the investigation. Petitioner's lack of a position with the company under scrutiny and his current small percentage of ownership of the same are irrelevant. The scope of the subpoena, which seeks records since January 2016, is not overbroad. See Sandsend Financial Consultants, Ltd. v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd. , 878 F.2d 875, 877 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Order Pursuant to Customer Challenge (ECF No.1 ) is DENIED - So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 2/5/2019. (Urizandi, Nisshy)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26578939/LaMountain_v_United_States_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission
What was he hiding he didn’t want the SEC to see?
LaMountain v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Rhode Island District Court
Judge: William E Smith
Referred: Patricia A Sullivan
Case #: 1:19-mc-00001
Case Filed: Jan 02, 2019
Terminated: Feb 05, 2019
Docket
Parties
Docket last updated: 04/09/2023 11:59 PM EDT
Tuesday, February 05, 2019
order Order on Motion to Quash Tue 02/05 1:48 PM
TEXT ORDER: After a careful review of the parties' filings, the Court finds there is a demonstrable basis to believe the SEC is pursuing a legitimate investigation. The SEC is charged with investigating possible violations of U.S. securities laws and here has issued a formal order of investigation. Moreover, it is reasonable to conclude that the subpoena seeks bank records that could contain information relevant to the investigation. Petitioner's lack of a position with the company under scrutiny and his current small percentage of ownership of the same are irrelevant. The scope of the subpoena, which seeks records since January 2016, is not overbroad. See Sandsend Financial Consultants, Ltd. v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd. , 878 F.2d 875, 877 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Order Pursuant to Customer Challenge (ECF No.1 ) is DENIED - So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 2/5/2019. (Urizandi, Nisshy)
Recent TTCM News
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/20/2026 09:37:06 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/28/2026 02:57:28 AM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/28/2025 05:07:43 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/14/2025 09:27:39 PM
