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)
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?