Legal Opinion
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Princeton Economic International Ltd.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 28, 1999No. 99 Civ. 9667, 99 Civ. 9669PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
OWEN, District Judge.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) alleges that Martin A. Armstrong, and his companies, Princeton Economic International Ltd. and Princeton Global Management Ltd. (collectively, “defendants”) and their myriad of subsidiaries and affiliates of all stripes, 1 violated section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77g(a), and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, by fraudulently offering and selling promissory notes in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. And Robert E. BrennanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Aaron v. Securities & Exchange CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Brenntag International Chemicals, Inc. v. Bank of India, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant, Norddeutsche Landesbank GzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,186 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated and Daniel G. SchumanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. British American Commodity Options Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. JBW Capital, LLCCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2016
- Quantum Corporate Funding, Ltd. v. Assist You Home Health Care Services of Virginia, L.L.C.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. WilsonDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2014
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Princeton Economics International, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002