Securities and Exchange Commission v. Churchville et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 100 Motion for TRO (to Enforce Stay and for Injunctive Relief). So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 8/1/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
CLEARPATH WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC,
CLEARPATH MULTI-STRATEGY FUND I, LP
CLEARPATH MULTI-STRATEGY FUND II, LP
CLEARPATH MULTI-STRATEGY FUND III, LP
HCR VALUE FUND, LP,
C.A. No. 15-191 S
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Court stay two arbitration proceedings currently before the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). (Mot. to
Enforce Stay and for Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 100.) The
supervise Patrick Churchville (“Churchville”) and ClearPath
Wealth Management, LLC (“ClearPath”) causing approximately
twenty-two million dollars in damages. (Id. at 2-3.) Several
currently before this Court involving a lawsuit brought by
the Securities and Exchange Commission against Churchville
and Clearpath. (See C.A. No. 15-191.) According to Spire,
the FINRA proceedings are “inextricably linked” to that case
and should therefore be stayed under the Court’s July 30
Order. (Mot. to Enforce Stay and for Injunctive Relief 1,
Order”), ECF No. 16).)
The Court’s July 30 Order “stayed until further Order
of this Court” certain arbitration proceedings that would
Receiver to recover funds. (July 30 Order ¶ 32, ECF No. 16.)
However, the two FINRA arbitration proceedings at issue do
not fall within the ambit of that Order. (See id. ¶¶ 32-34
(listing categories of cases to be stayed).) As noted by the
Receiver and the Securities and Exchange Commission in their
oppositions to Spire’s motion1, the purpose of the July 30
Receiver on behalf of the Court and for the benefit of the
victims of Churchville and Clearpath. Prohibiting various
Receiver’s Opp’n. to Application for a Temporary
Restraining Order, ECF No. 103; SEC’s Opp’n. to Application for
a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 104.
victims from seeking independent causes of action against
Spire’s Motion to Enforce Stay and for Injunctive Relief
(ECF No. 100) is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Date: August 1, 2017
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?