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)

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