Securities and Exchange Commission v. Allen et al
Filing
251
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 215 Plaintiff's Motion for Final Judgment of Disgorgement, Prejudgment Interest, and Third-Tier Penalties Against the Dowlatshahi and Mills Defendants. The Court will issue a Final Judgment of Disgorgement, Prejudgment Interest, and Civil Penalty as to the Dowlatshahi and Mills Defendants in separate orders. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 11/21/2012) (axm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID RONALD ALLEN, et al.,
Defendants,
and
PATRICIA ALLEN, et al.,
Relief Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-882-O
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment of Disgorgement, Prejudgment
Interest, and Third-Tier Penalties Against the Dowlatshahi and Mills Defendants (ECF No. 215),
Memorandum in Support (ECF No. 216), and Appendix in Support (ECF No. 217), filed May 11,
2012; the Mills Defendants’ Response (ECF No. 228), filed June 8, 2012; the Dowlatshahi
Defendants’ Response (ECF No. 229), filed June 8, 2012; and Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF No. 234), filed
June 22, 2012.
Having considered this motion and the applicable law, the Court finds that it should be and
is hereby GRANTED.
1
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 28, 2011, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
See generally Compl., ECF No. 2. This case concerns a Ponzi scheme launched by David Ronald
Allen (“Allen”), the co-founder, Chief Financial Officer, and holder of all the Series A preferred
stock of China Voice Holding Corp. (“China Voice”). Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 75. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants Alex Dowlatshahi (“Dowlatshahi”), Integrity Driven Network Corp.
(“IDN”), Lucrative Enterprises Corp. (“Lucrative), Synergetic Solution LLC (“Synergetic”), and
Darius Assets Holding Corp. (“Darius Assets”) (collectively, the “Dowlatshahi Defendants”), and
Defendants Christopher Mills (“Mills”), Sleeping Bear LLC (“Sleeping Bear”), and Silver Summit
Holdings LLC (“Silver Summit”) (collectively, the “Mills Defendants”), with the help of Allen,
began soliciting investments in a series of at least sixteen opportunities offered by limited
partnerships that Allen controlled. Id. ¶ 132. Instead of using those investments as promised to
investors, Defendants used the investment proceeds to pay back investors from prior limited
partnerships and to make payments to Allen, Dowlatshahi, Mills, and their affiliated companies. Id.
¶¶ 146, 165-67.
On August 31, 2011, the Dowlatshahi Defendants consented to the entry of a judgment
permanently restraining and enjoining them from violating specific provisions of the securities laws.
See Mot. J. Dowlatshahi Defs. Ex. A (Consent), ECF No. 125; Dowlatshahi Defs. J., ECF No. 126.
On September 9, 2011, the Mills Defendants consented to the entry of a similar judgment. See Mot.
J. Mills Defs. Ex. 1 (Consent), ECF No. 128; Mills Defs. J., ECF No. 129. By consenting, the
Dowlatshahi Defendants and Mills Defendants agreed that the Court would determine whether it is
appropriate to order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. See
2
Mot. J. Dowlatshahi Defs. Ex. A (Consent) ¶ 5-6, ECF No. 125; Mot. J. Mills Defs. Ex. 1 (Consent)
¶ 5, ECF No. 128. In addition, based on these judgments, the Court accepts the allegations of the
Amended Complaint as true. Dowlatshahi Defs. J. ¶¶ IV, V, ECF No. 126; Mills Defs. J. ¶ IV, ECF
No. 129.
On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff brought its Motion for Final Judgment against the Dowlatshahi
and Mills Defendants. Pl.’s Mot. Final. J., ECF No. 215. Specifically, Plaintiff moves for
disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a third-tier civil penalty against the Dowlatshahi and Mills
Defendants, and disgorgement and prejudgment interest against Relief Defendant Darius Assets
Holding Corp. Id. The Dowlatshahi and Mills Defendants respond that the Court should deny or
limit the disgorgement and prejudgment interest, that a civil penalty is not appropriate in this case,
and that they are entitled to a proper off-set. See Dowlatshahi Defs.’ Resp., ECF No. 229; Mills
Defs.’ Resp., ECF No. 228. The issues have been briefed by the parties and this matter is ripe for
determination.
II.
ANALYSIS
A.
Disgorgement
As to the Dowlatshahi Defendants, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a Final Judgment
ordering Dowlatshahi jointly and severally liable for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with his
entities: (1) Lucrative to disgorge ill-gotten gains of $300,4541 and prejudgment interest thereon of
$17,406; (2) Synergetic to disgorge ill-gotten gains of $24,091 and prejudgment interest thereon of
1
Although at one point Plaintiff requests that the Court “order Defendant Lucrative to disgorge
$301,104,” Pl.’s Mem. Supp. 13, ECF No. 216, the Court assumes this is actually a typographical error
because Plaintiff requests the amount of $300,454 throughout the rest of its motion and in the attached
exhibits.
3
$2,393; and (3) Relief Defendants Darius Assets to disgorge ill-gotten gains of $305,989 and
prejudgment interest thereon of $16,973. Pl.’s Mem. Supp. 11-12, ECF No. 216. The Dowlatshahi
Defendants respond that (1) Dowlatshahi’s personal liability is disproportionate compared to Allen’s
liability because Dowlatshahi owes double Allen’s amount, (2) the proposed disgorgement amount
is unnecessary to deter the Dowlatshahi Defendants from committing future violations of the
securities laws, and (3) Dowlatshahi lacks the ability to pay. Dowlatshahi Defs.’ Resp. 6-9, ECF No.
229.
As to the Mills Defendants, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a Final Judgment ordering
Mills to disgorge ill-gotten gains of $2,165 and prejudgment interest thereon of $240 and holding
Mills jointly and severally liable for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with his entities: (1) Sleeping
Bear to disgorge ill-gotten gains of $116,219 and prejudgment interest thereon of $8,638 and (2)
Silver Summit to disgorge ill-gotten gains of $18,025 and prejudgment interest thereon of $1,990.
Pl.’s Mem. Supp. 15, ECF No. 216. The Mills Defendants respond that Mills’s personal liability is
disproportionate compared to Allen’s liability because it is more than half of Allen’s amount, and
that the proposed disgorgement amount is unnecessary to deter the Mills Defendants from
committing future violations of the securities laws. Mills Defs.’ Resp. 5-6, ECF No. 228.
As to all the Dowlatshahi and Mills Defendants, Plaintiff responds that (1) Defendants do
not dispute the calculations of their ill-gotten gains, (2) disgorgement should not be reduced based
on another’s culpability, (3) disgorgement is a necessary deterrent, and (4) Defendants’ financial
state has no bearing on disgorgement. Pl.’s Reply 2-6, ECF No. 234. The Court agrees with
Plaintiff.
A court may order a party to disgorge profits flowing from securities law violations in order
4
to prevent the wrongdoer from enriching himself by his wrongs. See, e.g., SEC v. Huffman, 996 F.2d
800, 802-03 (5th Cir. 1993). The purpose of disgorgement is not only to address ill-gotten gains, but
also to deter future violations of the law. SEC v. Seghers, 298 F. App’x 319, 336 (5th Cir. 2008).
“Once the SEC has established that a defendant violated securities laws, a court may order the
defendant to disgorge a sum of money equal to all the illegal payments he received.” SEC v. Harris,
No. 3:09-CV-1809-B, 2012 WL 759885, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2012) (citing SEC v. Blavin, 760
F.2d 706, 713 (6th Cir. 1985)). The SEC bears the initial burden of showing that its requested
disgorgement amount reasonably approximates the amount of profits connected to the violation, and
then the burden shifts to the defendant to show that this figure is not a reasonable approximation.
See, e.g., SEC v. AmeriFirst Funding, Inc., No. 3:07-CV-1188-D, 2008 WL 1959843, at *2 (N.D.
Tex. May 5, 2008). A court enjoys broad discretion in determining the amount to be disgorged. See,
e.g., SEC v. First Jersey Sec., Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1474-75 (2d Cir. 1996). Further, “any risk of
uncertainty in calculating disgorgement should fall on the wrongdoer whose illegal conduct created
that uncertainty.” SEC v. Patel, 61 F.3d 137, 140 (2d Cir. 1995).
Because Defendants consented to the Final Judgment, they are precluded from arguing that
they did not violate the federal securities laws as alleged in the Amended Complaint. See Mot. J.
Dowlatshahi Defs. Ex. A (Consent), ECF No. 125; Dowlatshahi Defs. J., ECF No. 126; Mot. J. Mills
Defs. Ex. 1 (Consent), ECF No. 128; Mills Defs. J., ECF No. 129. Also, Defendants do not dispute
that they violated federal securities laws. Based on the evidence provided by the SEC, the Court’s
Final Judgments as to Defendants, and the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that the Dowlatshahi
and Mills Defendants violated federal securities laws and should disgorge their ill-gotten gains.
Having found that Defendants should disgorge their ill-gotten gains, the Court now examines
5
the appropriate amount of disgorgement. In support, Plaintiff offers (1) C.P.A. Stacy Fresch’s
declaration explaining how she created summary spreadsheets of transfers received by the Mills and
the Dowlatshahi Defendants, (2) the summary spreadsheets themselves, and (3) the underlying bank
records that were the source of the summary spreadsheets. Pl’s App. Supp. Mot. Final J., App. 1-3,
5-173 (the Dowlatshahi Defendants), ECF No. 217; id. at App. 1-2, 4, 174-225 (the Mills
Defendants). The Court finds these calculations are reasonable approximations of the Dowlatshahi
and Mills Defendants’ ill-gotten gains.
1.
The Dowlatshahi Defendants
The Dowlatshahi Defendants make no arguments that Plaintiff’s approximations are
unreasonable. See Dowlatshahi Defs.’ Resp., ECF No. 229. Instead, they emphasize that “[t]he
purpose of disgorgement is an equitable one, giving the Court broad discretion in fashioning the
appropriate amount.” Id. at 7 (citing Huffman, 996 F.2d at 803). Citing Dowlatshahi’s cooperation
with the SEC, the disproportionate liability Dowlatshahi faces compared to Allen, Dowlatshahi’s
inability to pay, and the fact that disgorgement is unnecessary to deter future violations, the
Dowlatshahi Defendants argue that the Court should limit the Dowlatshahi Defendants’
disgorgement amount. Id. at 6-9. The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive.
The Dowlatshahi Defendants have offered no convincing authority for their position that the
Court is required to consider comparative culpability when assessing disgorgement amounts, but
only argue that a court “has broad discretion to measure a defendant’s relative culpability and weigh
it against that of other co-defendants.” See Dowlatshahi Defs.’ Resp. 6, ECF No. 229 (citing SEC
v. One Wall St., Inc., No. 06-CV-4217, 2008 WL 5082294 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2008)). Also, while
the Court recognizes that Defendants cooperated with the SEC, such cooperation does not
6
necessarily require a reduction in the amount of disgorgement. See Harris, 2012 WL 759885, at *25 (discussing defendants’ cooperation only with respect to the proper civil penalty amount and not
with respect to the proper disgorgement amount). Furthermore, the Court finds Defendants’
argument that disgorgement is unnecessary to deter future violations unpersuasive given
Dowlatshahi’s repeated violations and previous conduct. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 140 (previous
California cease and desist order), 132 (repeated meetings), 144 (radio interview). Finally, the Court
finds that Dowlatshahi Defendants’ evidence of inability to pay is insufficient to support a denial of
or reduction in amount of disgorgement. Harris, 2012 WL 759885, at *5 (“[I]nability to pay must
be established by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the plain statement of a defendant.”).
Given that the SEC has shown that its proposed disgorgement is a reasonable approximation
of the Dowlatshahi Defendants’ gain, the Court finds that the disgorgement amounts as to the
Dowlatshahi Defendants are proper. Accordingly, the Court finds Dowlatshahi jointly and severally
liable for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with his entities: (1) Lucrative to disgorge ill-gotten gains
of $300,454, (2) Synergetic to disgorge ill-gotten gains of $24,091, and (3) Relief Defendants Darius
Assets to disgorge ill-gotten gains of $305,989.
2.
The Mills Defendants
Similar to the Dowlatshahi Defendants, the Mills Defendants make no arguments that
Plaintiff’s approximations were unreasonable, and instead emphasize the Court’s discretion in
deciding the appropriate amount. See Mills Defs.’ Resp. 4-7, ECF No. 228. The Mills Defendants
argue that Mills’s liability is disproportionate at over half of Allen’s amount, that Mills cooperated
with the SEC, and that disgorgement is unnecessary for deterrence because Mills has already
accepted full responsibility for his actions and experienced significant financial consequences. Id.
7
at 5-6. The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive.
Similar to the Dowlatshahi Defendants, the Mills Defendants have offered no convincing
authority for their position that the Court must consider comparative culpability when assessing
disgorgement amounts. See Mills Defs.’ Resp. 5, ECF No. 228 (citing SEC v. One Wall St., Inc., No.
06-CV-4217, 2008 WL 5082294 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2008)). While the Court recognizes that
Defendants cooperated with the SEC, such cooperation does not necessarily require a reduction in
the amount of disgorgement. See Harris, 2012 WL 759885, at *2-5 (discussing defendants’
cooperation only with respect to the proper civil penalty amount and not with respect to the proper
disgorgement amount). Finally, although the Mills Defendants cite that Mills has accepted
responsibility for his actions and that he has already experienced financial consequences, the Court
finds Defendants’ argument that disgorgement is unnecessary to deter future violations unpersuasive
given Mills’s repeated violations. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 132, 135-36, 138, 141-43, ECF No. 75.
Given that the SEC has shown that its proposed disgorgement was a reasonable
approximation of the Mills Defendants’ gain, the Court finds that the disgorgement amounts
requested by Plaintiff for the Mills Defendants to pay are proper. Accordingly, the Court finds Mills
should disgorge ill-gotten gains of $2,165 and finds Mills jointly and severally liable for
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with his entities: (1) Sleeping Bear to disgorge ill-gotten gains of
$116,219 and (2) Silver Summit to disgorge ill-gotten gains of $18,025.
B.
Prejudgement Interest
Plaintiff also requests prejudgment interest on Defendants’ disgorgement. Pl.’s Mot. Final.
J., ECF No. 215. “The Court may award prejudgment interest on disgorgement amounts, in its
discretion, in order to prevent parties from benefitting from what is, in essence, an interest-free loan
8
resulting from illegal activity.” Harris, 2012 WL 759885, at *4 (citing SEC v. Jakubowski, No. 94
C 4539, 1997 WL 598108, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 1997)).
Defendants do not set forth any particular objections to the SEC’s calculations or the SEC’s
request for prejudgment interest.
At most, the Mills Defendants argue that “Courts have
considerable discretion in assessing prejudgment interest.” Mills Defs.’ Resp. 5, ECF No. 228
(citing Cyrak v. Lemon, 919 F.2d 320, 326 n.12 (5th Cir. 1990)). The Court finds that Defendants
should pay Plaintiff’s requested prejudgment interest amount. Accordingly, the Court finds
Dowlatshahi jointly and severally liable for prejudgment interest with his entities: (1) Lucrative’s
prejudgment interest of $17,406, (2) Synergetic’s prejudgment interest of $2,393, and (3) Darius
Assets’s prejudgment interest thereon of $16,973. Also, the Court finds Mills liable for prejudgment
interest of $240, and finds Mills jointly and severally liable for prejudgment interest with his entities:
(1) Sleeping Bear’s prejudgment interest of $8,638 and (2) Silver Summit’s prejudgment interest of
$1,990.
C.
Civil Penalties
Plaintiff requests that the Court impose third-tier civil penalties against both the Dowlatshahi
and Mills Defendants. Pl.’s Mem. Supp. 13, 16-17, ECF No. 216. The Dowlatshahi and Mills
Defendants argue that civil penalties are inappropriate and excessive. See Dowlatshahi Defs.’ Resp.
9, ECF No. 229; Mills Defs.’ Resp. 7, ECF No. 228.
Under Section 20(d) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d), and Section 21(d) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d), courts are authorized to impose a third-tier civil money penalty
if the defendant’s violation (1) “involved fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless
disregard of a regulatory requirement” and (2) “directly or indirectly resulted in substantial losses
9
to other persons.” These Acts also limit third-tier civil penalties for a natural person to the greater
of $130,000 or the gross amount of pecuniary gain to such defendant as a result of the violation. 15
U.S.C. §§ 77t(d), 78u(d).
The Court finds that the SEC’s evidence clearly shows that the Dowlatshahi Defendants and
Mills Defendants violated securities laws through a fraudulent scheme, and this scheme directly or
indirectly resulted in substantial losses or created a significant risk of substantial losses to investors.
The Amended Complaint, which the Court deems as true for purposes of this motion, alleges that
the Dowlatshahi Defendants and Mills Defendants offered unregistered securities to investors and
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions to investors about the Limited
Partnerships. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 132-33, 135, 139-46, ECF No. 75. These violations resulted in
substantial losses and risk of further losses to investors, whose funds were dissipated through
transfers to other investors, to companies who could not and did not repay the money, and to
Defendants Mills, Dowlatshahi, and their companies. Id. ¶¶ 146-47, 150-62, 165. Accordingly, the
Court is authorized to impose third-tier civil penalties, but the Court must first determine whether
any other relevant factors weigh against imposition of third-tier penalties or weigh in favor of a
reduction.
In assessing the appropriate amount of third-tier civil penalties, courts consider multiple
factors, including:
(1) the egregiousness of the defendant’s conduct; (2) the degree of
defendant’s scienter; (3) whether the defendant’s conduct created
substantial loss or the risk of substantial loss to other persons; (4)
whether the defendant’s conduct was isolated or recurrent; (5) and
whether the penalty should be reduced due to the defendant’s
demonstrated current and future financial situation.
10
AmeriFirst, 2008 WL 1959843, at *7 (quoting SEC v. Opulentica, 479 F. Supp. 2d 319, 331
(S.D.N.Y. 2007)). Some courts also consider factors such as “cooperation of the defendant with law
enforcement authorities and the adequacy of other criminal or civil sanctions to punish the
defendant.” Id. (citing SEC v. Lewis, 492 F. Supp. 2d 1173, 1174 (D.S.D. 2007); SEC v. Church
Extension of the Church of God, Inc., 429 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1050-51 (S.D. Ind. 2005)). “While
these factors are helpful in characterizing a particular defendant’s actions, the civil penalty
framework is of a discretionary nature and each case has its own particular facts and circumstances
which determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed.” Id. (quoting Opulentica, 479 F. Supp. 2d
at 331).
Considering all of the factors, the Court finds imposition of third-tier civil penalties
appropriate. Defendants have provided no evidentiary support showing that the SEC’s requested
penalty amount is inappropriate. As already found by the Court, Defendants’ conduct created
substantial loss to other persons. Also, the Court finds that Defendants’ conduct was recurrent and
that they acted with scienter. For example, the Dowlatshahi Defendants repeated their falsehoods
in face-to-face meetings with investors, in offering materials, on the Integrity Driven Network
(“IDN”) website, and in Dowlatshahi’s radio interview. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 135-39, 141-45, 148-49,
166, ECF No. 75. The Mills Defendants also repeated falsehoods to induce investments at these
meetings and through the IDN website. Id. ¶¶ 135-36, 141-43, 146, 148, 165, 167).
Defendants make the argument that these penalties should be reduced because of their
cooperation with the SEC. See Dowlatshahi Defs.’ Resp. 10-12, ECF No. 229; Mills Defs.’ Resp.
8-9. The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive. The Court recognizes, based on both
Defendants’ and the SEC’s statements, that Defendants have cooperated with Plaintiff, which has
11
aided Plaintiff’s efforts to collect assets and litigate this case. However, such cooperation does not
change the fact that Defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme and misled investors, resulting
in the substantial loss or risk of substantial loss of investor funds. Further, Plaintiff has already
reduced the requested penalty amounts based upon the Dowlatshahi Defendants’ cooperation. See
Pl.’s Mem. Supp. 14, ECF No. 216. Also, Plaintiff considered a reduction for the Mills Defendants,
but because they “failed to provide any details or meaningful assistance to the SEC in its case against
other defendants” Plaintiff did not apply a reduction. Pl.’s Reply 8, ECF No. 234.
Defendants also argue that these penalties should be reduced based on their lack of ability
to pay. See Dowlatshahi Defs.’ Resp. 10-12, ECF No. 229; Mills Defs.’ Resp. 8-9. The Court finds
these arguments unpersuasive. The ability to pay must be established by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Harris, 2012 WL 759885, at *5 (citing Huffman, 996 F.2d at 803). The Mills
Defendants offer no evidence of their lack of ability to pay. See generally Mills Defs.’ Resp., ECF
No. 228 (stating “[Mills] is completely broke and without a job” but attaching no exhibits or
evidence). The Dowlatshahi Defendants submitted a declaration of Dowlatshahi and a balance sheet
of his current assets and liabilities. Dowlatshahi Defs.’ Resp. Ex. A, ECF No. 229. The Court finds
this evidence insufficient to prove a lack of ability to pay by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, the Court finds the majority of the factors weigh in favor of imposition of civil
penalties and against a reduction in the amount.
Finally, Dowlatshahi makes the argument that he should not be jointly and severally liable
for IDN’s $50,000 civil penalty because Allen’s Final Judgment did not include a civil penalty
associated with IDN even though the Amended Complaint lists them both as directors, officers,
registered agents and/or managing members of IDN. Dowlatshahi Defs.’ Resp. 8, ECF No. 229.
12
Dowlatshahi argues it is inequitable to treat similarly-situated defendants differently. However, he
has provided no persuasive authority that the Court should compare liability among defendants.
Therefore, Dowlatshahi should be liable for IDN’s penalties regardless of Allen’s Final Judgment.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the amounts Plaintiff requests for third-tier civil
penalties are appropriate. Accordingly, the Court finds third-tier penalties are proper against the
Mills Defendants: (1) Mills personally liable for $2,165; (2) Mills and Sleeping Bear jointly and
severally liable for $116,219; and (3) Mills and Silver Summit jointly and severally liable for
$18,025. In addition, the Court finds third-tier penalties are proper and finds Dowlatshahi jointly
and severally liable with his entities: (1) IDN to pay a third-tier civil penalty of $50,000; (2)
Lucrative to pay a third-tier civil penalty of $150,227; and (3) Synergetic to pay a third-tier civil
penalty of $12,045.
D.
Off-Set
The Dowlatshahi and Mills Defendants argue that they are entitled to a credit on their
disgorgement liability for investor funds returned either during or after the scheme’s conclusion. See
Dowlatshahi Defs.’ Resp. 12, ECF No. 229; Mills Defs.’ Resp. 9, ECF No. 228 (citing AmeriFirst,
2008 WL 1959843, at *4). While the Court agrees that Defendants would be entitled to an off-set
if any funds were returned, Defendants have offered no evidence in support. See Pl.’s Reply 6, ECF
No. 234. Absent such evidence, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to an off-set.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment
(ECF No. 209). The Court will issue a Final Judgment of Disgorgement, Prejudgment Interest, and
Civil Penalty as to the Dowlatshahi and Mills Defendants in separate orders.
13
SO ORDERED on this 21st day of November, 2012.
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
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?