Home > Boards > US OTC > Delisted > Pharm Control Ltd. (fka PMCL)

FOUND THIS ON THE [MGLG] BOARD....

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
slob Member Profile
 
Followed By 33
Posts 3,055
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/17/08
160x600 placeholder
slob   Monday, 11/28/11 06:56:34 PM
Re: PhillyPA65 post# 39749
Post # of 39795 
FOUND THIS ON THE [MGLG] BOARD....






• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE...

View Case

Cited Cases
Citing Cases

Comment (0)
| Follow Leagle on Twitter |




SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. BOOCK
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff,v.IRWIN BOOCK, STANTON B.J. DEFREITAS, NICOLETTE D. LOISEL, ROGER L. SHOSS AND JASON C. WONG, Defendants, ANDBIRTE BOOCK AND 1621533 ONTARIO, INC., Relief Defendants.
No. 09 Civ. 8261 (DLC).
United States District Court, S.D. New York.

November 9, 2011.

Justin Chretien, Paul W. Kisslinger, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20549, For the plaintiff.
Jason C. Wong, Russell Cornelius Weigel, III, Edward Robert Averbuch, Law Office of Russell C. Weigel, III, P.A., 5775 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 100, Miami, FL 33126, For defendant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




OPINION AND ORDER
DENISE COTE, District Judge.
The plaintiff, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), brought this action against five defendants — Irwin Boock ("Boock"), Stanton B.J. DeFreitas ("DeFreitas"), Nicolette D. Loisel ("Loisel"), Roger L. Shoss ("Shoss") and Jason C. Wong ("Wong") (collectively, the "Defendants") — alleging a securities fraud scheme whereby these individuals hijacked defunct or inactive corporations (the "Hijacked Corporations"), issued unregistered stock and sold the securities in violation of the antifraud and registration requirements of the federal securities laws (the "Scheme"). The Court has entered a default as to Boock and DeFreitas. This action is stayed with regard to Loisel and Shoss pending criminal proceedings against them.
On February 25, 2011, the SEC filed a motion for summary judgment as to Wong and Wong filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. These motions were fully submitted on April 6. On August 25, the Court issued an opinion granting the SEC's summary judgment in part and denying Wong's motion for partial summary judgment (the "Summary Judgment Opinion"). SEC v. Boock, et al., No. 09 Civ. 8261 (DLC), 2011 WL 3792819 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011)
Wong timely filed this motion for reconsideration of the Summary Judgment Opinion on September 8, 2011. Familiarity with the facts of this case, as set out in the Summary Judgment Opinion, is assumed. For the following reasons, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
DISCUSSION
The standard for reconsideration is strict. "Generally, motions for reconsideration are not granted unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." In re BDC 56 LLC, 330 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). "[A] motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Likewise, a party moving for reconsideration may not "advance new facts, issues, or arguments not previously presented to the Court." Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Stroh Cos., Inc., 265 F.3d 97, 115 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The decision to grant or deny the motion for reconsideration is within "the sound discretion of the district court." Aczel v. Labonia, 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<<Prev 1 2 3 Next>>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Wong also does not explain why Janus Capital, which found that the wording of the relevant statutes did not permit private actors to sue those who may be liable for the misstatements of others in violation of Rule 10b-5, has any bearing on the SEC's capacity to sue secondary violators, which is provided for specifically by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(e).


Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
X
Current Price
Change
Volume
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist