Securities & Exchange Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd.

Filing 57

ORDER Granting 49 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint and Denying 4 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appear. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 03/10/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) BANC DE BINARY LTD., ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________________ ) 2:13-cv-00993-RCJ-VCF ORDER 12 13 This case arises out of the alleged trading of unregistered securities. The Court has 14 entered a preliminary injunction, ruling that although they are not in fact options, the “binary 15 options” Defendant is alleged to sell are “securities” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 16 as amended. Plaintiff asked to amend the Complaint to add Oren Shabat Laurent as a Defendant. 17 Mr. Laurent is the founder, president, chief executive officer, 50% shareholder, and executive 18 director of Defendant. Neither Defendant nor Mr. Laurent timely opposed the motion, and the 19 Court granted it. Plaintiff has asked to Amend again to add ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems 20 Ltd. Seychelles, and BDB Services Ltd. Seychelles as Defendants. Neither Defendants nor the 21 parties proposed to be joined have timely objected. The Court therefore grants the motion. 22 Also, Attorneys Berry and Hakala have asked to appear pro hac vice on behalf of the 23 SEC. The Court will permit these attorneys to appear if they submit declarations indicating their 24 review of and assent to the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, but they have not yet done so. 25 The Court previously permitted Attorney Longo to appear without submitting such a declaration. 1 The Court now requests that she also submit such a declaration at this time. The Court must 2 require this in fairness to the opposing parties. See EEOC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:13- 3 cv-528, 2014 WL 258560, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2014) (Jones, J.) (“[T]he Court will not permit 4 the attorneys in this case to be governed by different sets of ethical rules.”). The Court will also 5 require Plaintiff to show, as the EEOC did in the cited case, that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 6 this District is incapable of litigating the present matter either by statute or due to a lack of 7 manpower or subject-matter experience. 8 9 10 11 12 13 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Appear (ECF No. 4) is DENIED, without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 10th of of March, 2014. Dated this 4th daydayMarch, 2014. 14 15 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 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?