Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gold-Quest International, et al

Filing 299

ORDER Granting 298 Stipulation to Reappoint Receiver. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 8/30/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DAVID J. VAN HAVERMAAT (Cal Bar No. 175761) Email: vanhavermaatd@sec.gov TERI M. MELSON (Cal. Bar No. 185209) Email: melsont@sec.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission Michele Wein Layne, Regional Director John W. Berry, Regional Trial Counsel 444 S. Flower St., Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (323) 965-3998 Facsimile: (213) 443-1904 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. GOLD-QUEST INTERNATIONAL, DAVID GREENE a/k/a LORD DAVID GREENE a/k/a DAVID GREEN, JOHN JENKINS and MICHAEL MCGEE, Defendants. Case No. 08-CV-00566-KJD-LRL JOINT STIPULATION TO REAPPOINT RECEIVER FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF EXECUTING FINAL CONSENT JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF GOLD-QUEST INTERNATIONAL WHEREAS, on May 14, 2008, the Court entered its Preliminary Injunction 1 2 and Orders: (1) Freezing Assets; (2) Appointing Permanent Receiver; and other 3 relief (Doc. No. 46) (the “Permanent Receiver Order”) which, inter alia, appointed 4 Cook Receiver Services, Inc. (the “Receiver”) as the permanent receiver of 5 defendant Gold-Quest International (“Defendant”); and WHEREAS, the Permanent Receiver Order provided, inter alia, that the 6 7 Receiver had full power to exercise all lawful powers of Defendant; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2010, the Court entered its Order Approving 8 9 Fifth and Final Status Report and Request to Grant Receiver’s Motion to 10 Terminate Receivership (Doc. No. 294) (the “Receivership Termination Order”); 11 and 12 WHEREAS, the Receivership Termination Order provided, inter alia, that 13 the Receivership was terminated upon the Receiver filing a Notice that he had 14 transferred the net proceeds of the Receivership Estate to the United States 15 Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); and 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 WHEREAS, the Receiver filed his Notice of Compliance on July 22, 2010 (Doc. No. 296); and WHEREAS, the SEC is prepared to seek final judgment against Defendant, but first requires the Receiver’s execution of the consent; and WHEREAS final judgments have already been entered against all other defendants in this action; and WHEREAS, accordingly, the SEC requests that the Court’s reappoint the Receiver for the limited purpose of executing the proposed consent judgment. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto and their 25 counsel of record that: (1) Cook Receiver Services, Inc. is hereby reappointed as 26 Receiver for Gold-Quest International in this case for the limited purpose of 1 1 executing a consent judgment on behalf of Gold-Quest International; (2) Cook 2 Receiver Services, Inc. is not required to post a bond for the limited purpose of this 3 Order; and (3) upon the Court’s entry of any consent judgment as to Gold-Quest 4 International, Cook Receiver Services, Inc. is immediately terminated as Receiver 5 in this proceeding, Cook Receiver Services, Inc. and its staff shall be discharged 6 from all liability, and the Receivership shall be terminated. 7 8 Dated: August 29, 2016 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 9 /s/ David J. Van Havermaat David J. Van Havermaat Teri M. Melson Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission 10 11 12 13 Dated: August 29, 2016 GOLD-QUEST INTERNATIONAL 14 /s/ Brian M. Holland Brian M. Holland (admitted pro hac vice) Lathrop & Gage, LLP Attorney for Cook Receiver Services, Inc., Receiver 15 16 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 24 DATED: _________________ 8/30/2016 ____________________________________ THE HONORABLE KENT J. DAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 2

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?