Securities & Exchange Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd.

Filing 140

ORDER Granting 139 Stipulation Further Staying Action Pending Potential Settlement. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/3/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

Case 2:13-cv-00993-RCJ-VCF Document 139 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

JOHN W. BERRY (Cal. Bar No. 295760) (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
AMY JANE LONGO (Cal. Bar No. 198304) (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
LESLIE A. HAKALA (Cal. Bar. No. 199414) (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
Michele Wein Layne, Regional Director
Lorraine Echavarria, Associate Regional Director
John W. Berry, Regional Trial Counsel
444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00993-RCJ-VCF
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
FURTHER STAYING ACTION PENDING
POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff,
vs.
BANC DE BINARY LTD, OREN
SHABAT LAURENT (f/k/a OREN
SHABAT), ET BINARY OPTIONS LTD.,
BO SYSTEMS LTD. SEYCHELLES and
BDB SERVICES LTD. SEYCHELLES,
Defendants.

24
25

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and Defendants

26

Banc de Binary Ltd, Oren Shabat Laurent, ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems Ltd. Seychelles,

27

and BDB Services Ltd. Seychelles, have reported to the Court that they reached a potential

28

settlement in principle that would resolve this action and the action CFTC v. Banc de Binary Ltd

Case 2:13-cv-00993-RCJ-VCF Document 139 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 5

1

et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00992-MMD-VCF (the “CFTC Action”);
WHEREAS, the defendants in this action and the CFTC Action, counsel for the CFTC

2
3

and counsel for the SEC have executed a Term Sheet re: Proposed Global Settlement, dated

4

August 27, 2015, reflecting the terms of their proposed agreement in principle (the “Proposed

5

Global Settlement”);
WHEREAS, the Proposed Global Settlement is subject to approval by both the

6
7

Commissioners of the SEC and the Commissioners of the CFTC;
WHEREAS, in the interests of efficiency for the Court and the parties, the parties

8
9

previously agreed to stay this action, subject to the Court’s approval, so that the parties can

10

attempt to finalize the governing documents for the Proposed Global Settlement, counsel for the

11

SEC can recommend the settlement to the SEC Commissioners, and the parties can file, if

12

approved by the SEC Commissioners, any resulting final settlement papers (see Dkt. No. 137);

13

WHEREAS, the Court approved and ordered the requested stay, staying the action until

14

October 23, 2015 unless a party filed a notice to lift that stay (see Dkt. No. 137);

15

WHEREAS, because the parties have made substantial progress toward finalizing the

16

governing documents for the Proposed Global Settlement, the parties have agreed to stay the

17

action further, subject to the Court’s approval, for an additional ten weeks, taking into account

18

the upcoming winter holidays, so that they can attempt to finish the process of finalizing the

19

documents, counsel for the SEC can recommend the settlement to the SEC Commissioners, and

20

the parties can file, if approved by the SEC Commissioners, any resulting final settlement papers;

21

and

22
23
24
25

WHEREAS, the parties to the CFTC Action are simultaneously filing a similar proposed
stipulation and order to stay the CFTC Action, for the same duration;
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and
among counsel for the parties as follows:

26

1.

This action is stayed until December 31, 2015.

27

2.

Before December 31, 2015, this stay shall be lifted without further action by the

28

Court upon the filing of a notice by any party to lift the stay, at which point the litigation shall

2

Case 2:13-cv-00993-RCJ-VCF Document 139 Filed 10/23/15 Page 3 of 5

1

immediately resume on the filing date of that notice, with the parties restored to their respective

2

positions as of the date of this stipulation. No party can challenge or dispute the filing of a notice

3

to lift the stay by another party. To the extent the stay is lifted by such notice by a party, the

4

defendants’ response to the SEC’s pending summary judgment motion (Dkt. Nos. 126, 128) shall

5

be due four business days after the notice is filed. Moreover, within five business days of the

6

filing of party’s notice to lift the stay, the parties agree to jointly request a status conference with

7

the Court to address the remaining pretrial and trial schedule.

8

3.

If the SEC Commissioners do not approve a settlement or a final settlement is not

9

otherwise reached, with all definitive final documents filed with the Court, by December 31,

10

2015, then the litigation shall resume on that day, without further action of the Court and with

11

the parties restored to their respective positions as of the date of this stipulations. The

12

defendants’ response to the SEC’s pending summary judgment motion (Dkt. Nos. 126, 128) shall

13

be due January 8, 2016. Moreover, on or before January 11, 2016, the parties agree to jointly

14

request a status conference with the Court to address the remaining pretrial and trial schedule.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Dated: October 23, 2015

Dated: October 23, 2015

/s/ John W. Berry (w/ permission)
John W. Berry
Amy J. Longo
Leslie A. Hakala
444 S. Flower Street, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

/s/ Rachel Hirsch
A. Jeff Ifrah
Rachel Hirsch
Ifrah Law
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006-2004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

21
Attorneys for Defendants
22
23

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission

24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25

November 3, 2015
Dated: ____________________

26
27
The Honorable Richard Jones
United States District Judge

28

3

Case 2:13-cv-00993-RCJ-VCF Document 139 Filed 10/23/15 Page 4 of 5

1
2
3

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is:
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 650, Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone No. [phone]; Facsimile No. [phone]

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

On October 23, 2015, I caused to be served the document entitled STIPULATION AND
PROPOSED ORDER FURTHER STAYING ACTION PENDING POTENTIAL
SETTLEMENT on all the parties to this action addressed as stated on the attached service list:
☐
OFFICE MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I placed for collection and
mailing today following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this agency’s
practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would
be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
☐
PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I
personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service. Each such envelope was deposited with the
U.S. Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid.
☐
EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in a facility regularly
maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of Express Mail at Los Angeles, California, with
Express Mail postage paid.
☐
HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope to the office of
the addressee as stated on the attached service list.
☐
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: By placing in sealed envelope(s) designated by United
Parcel Service (“UPS”) with delivery fees paid or provided for, which I deposited in a facility
regularly maintained by UPS or delivered to a UPS courier, at Los Angeles, California.
☐
ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mail to the
electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list.
☒
E-FILING: By causing the document to be electronically filed via the Court’s CM/ECF
system, which effects electronic service on counsel who are registered with the CM/ECF system.
☐
FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. The transmission was
reported as complete and without error.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: October 23, 2015

/s/ Rachel Hirsch
Rachel Hirsch

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Case 2:13-cv-00993-RCJ-VCF Document 139 Filed 10/23/15 Page 5 of 5

2

SEC v. Banc de Binary Ltd, et al.
United States District Court – District of Nevada
Case No. 2:13-cv-00993-RCJ-VCF

3

SERVICE LIST

1

8

John W. Berry, Esq.
Amy J. Longo, Esq.
Leslie A. Hakala, Esq.
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone No. [phone]
Facsimile No. [phone]

9

Attorneys for Plaintiff, SEC

4
5
6
7

10
11
12
13
14
15

Craig S. Denney, Esq.
Greg Brower, Esq.
Carrie L. Parker, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P
50 West Liberty Street, Suite 510
Reno, NV 89501
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Tel: [phone]

16
17

Attorneys for Defendants

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2