Securities And Exchange Commission v. Alexander et al
Filing
82
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 80 Stipulation (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2015)
1 JINA L. CHOI (N.Y. Bar No. 154425)
SHEILA E. O’CALLAGHAN (Cal. Bar No. 130132)
2
ocallaghans@sec.gov
ERIC M. BROOKS (Cal. Bar No. 209153)
3
brookse@sec.gov
4
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
6 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, California 94104
7 Telephone: (415) 705-2500
Facsimile: (415) 705-2501
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN JOSE DIVISION
13
14 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Case No. 10-cv-04535-LHK
15
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT
AS TO DEFENDANT BETH PIÑA
16
Plaintiff,
vs.
17 BARBRA ALEXANDER, BETH PIÑA, MICHAEL E.
SWANSON, AND APS FUNDING, INC.,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Judgment Against Beth Piña
SEC v. Alexander, et al.
Case No. 10-cv-04535-LHK
1
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), having filed a Complaint and
2
Defendant Beth Piña (“Defendant”), having entered a general appearance; consented to the Court’s
3
jurisdiction over Defendant and the subject matter of this action; consented to entry of this Final
4
Judgment; waived findings of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any right to appeal from
5
this Final Judgment:
6
I.
7
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant is
8
permanently restrained and enjoined from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
9
(the “Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] in the offer or sale of any security by the use of any
10
means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of
11
the mails, directly or indirectly:
12
(a)
to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; or
13
(b)
to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or
14
any omission of a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in
15
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
16
17
(c)
to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or
would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
18
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, as provided in Federal
20
Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also binds the following who receive
21
actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise: (a) Defendant’s officers,
22
agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in active concert or participation
23
with Defendant or with anyone described in (a).
24
II.
25
26
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant is
27
permanently restrained and enjoined from violating directly or indirectly, Section 10(b) of the
28
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5
[Proposed] Final Judgment Against Beth Piña
SEC v. Alexander, et al.
Case No. 10-cv-04535-LHK
2
1
promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], by using any means or instrumentality of
2
interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, in
3
connection with the purchase or sale of any security:
4
(a)
to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;
5
(b)
to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact
6
necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances
7
under which they were made, not misleading; or
8
9
(c)
to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would
operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.
10
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, as provided in Federal
12
Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also binds the following who receive
13
actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise: (a) Defendant’s officers,
14
agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in active concert or participation
15
with Defendant or with anyone described in (a).
16
III.
17
18
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is liable for disgorgement of
19
$325,309, representing profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the complaint, together
20
with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $16,122.25, for a total of $341,431.25.
21
Defendant’s payment of disgorgement and prejudgment interest is deemed satisfied by the order
22
requiring Defendant to pay restitution in United States v. Beth Piña, Crim. No. CR-10-11730-LHK
23
(N.D. Cal.) (the “Parallel Criminal Action”).
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Final Judgment Against Beth Piña
SEC v. Alexander, et al.
Case No. 10-cv-04535-LHK
3
IV.
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, for purposes of
2
3
exceptions to discharge set forth in Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523, the
4
allegations in the complaint are true and admitted by Defendant, and further, any debt for
5
disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil penalty or other amounts due by Defendant under this
6
Final Judgment or any other judgment, order, consent order, decree or settlement agreement
7
8
9
10
entered in connection with this proceeding, is a debt for the violation by Defendant of the federal
securities laws or any regulation or order issued under such laws, as set forth in Section 523(a)(19)
of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(19).
11
V.
12
13
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.
14
VI.
15
16
There being no just reason for delay, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Judgment forthwith and without further notice.
17
18
19
Dated
June 15, 2015
________________, 2015
___________________________
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Final Judgment Against Beth Piña
SEC v. Alexander, et al.
Case No. 10-cv-04535-LHK
4
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?