United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Trevor Cook, et al.

Filing 566

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Trevor Cook's Motion to Vacate/Purge Contempt 474 is DENIED. The SEC, CFTC and the Receiver shall continue to meet with Defendant Cook for purposes of recovering additional investor assets. Prior t o each such interview, the SEC, CFTC and the Receiver shall submit to Defendant Cook's counsel the list of questions that will be asked the Defendant, and the information sought, in order to streamline the interview process. The parties shall appear before the Court for a status conference on December 6, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.(Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 11/1/10. (GRR)

Download PDF
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Trevor Cook, et al. Doc. 566 CASE 0:09-cv-03333-MJD-FLN Document 566 Filed 11/01/10 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff, v. Trevor Cook, d/b/a Crown Forex, LLC and Patrick J. Kiley, d/b/a Crown Forex, LLC et al., Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________ U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 093332 (MJD/JJK) Trevor Cook, d/b/a Crown Forex, LLC and Patrick J. Kiley, d/b/a Crown Forex, LLC et al., Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ John E. Birkenheier, Adolph J. Dean, Jr., Steven L. Klawans and Justin M Delfino, and James Alexander, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Susan Gradman and David Slovick, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and James Alexander, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for 1 ORDER Civil No. 093333 (MJD/JJK) Dockets.Justia.com CASE 0:09-cv-03333-MJD-FLN Document 566 Filed 11/01/10 Page 2 of 3 Plaintiff United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"). William J. Mauzy and Piper Kennedy Webb, Counsel for Defendant Trevor Cook. ______________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Trevor Cook's motion to lift this Court's Contempt Order dated January 25, 2010, and to find that the Defendant either purged his contempt or compliance became impossible on April 13, 2010 the date he entered a plea of guilty in his criminal case. The Court heard testimony from Defendant as to his asserted present inability to comply. The SEC, CFTC and the Receiver each oppose the motion, arguing that Defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating that he has either purged his contempt or that he is presently unable to comply. In addition, the SEC, CFTC and the Receiver have demonstrated that Defendant may still be in possession of information that will assist in the recovery of additional investor assets. Based on the record currently before the Court, the Court finds that Defendant Trevor Cook has not met his burden of demonstrating that he has either purged himself of contempt or that is presently unable to comply with the Court's Contempt Order dated January 25, 2010. 2 CASE 0:09-cv-03333-MJD-FLN Document 566 Filed 11/01/10 Page 3 of 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Trevor Cook's Motion to Vacate/Purge Contempt [Doc. No. 474] is DENIED. The SEC, CFTC and the Receiver shall continue to meet with Defendant Cook for purposes of recovering additional investor assets. Prior to each such interview, the SEC, CFTC and the Receiver shall submit to Defendant Cook's counsel the list of questions that will be asked the Defendant, and the information sought, in order to streamline the interview process. The parties shall appear before the Court for a status conference on December 6, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Date: November 1, 2010 s/ Michael J. Davis Michael J. Davis Chief Judge United States District Court 3

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?