Legal Opinion
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Graystone Nash, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided April 21, 1993No. Civ. A. 91-4327PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOLIN, District Judge.
Before the Court is the motion of plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), for summary judgment on Counts One to Four of the Complaint 1 and for an order of preclusion against defendants Thomas Ackerly, Richard Adams, and Vincent Ackerly (collectively the “New Jersey defendants”). Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of trading gains and a permanent injunction. 2 Having reviewed the written submissions of the parties and heard oral argument, for the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant plaintiffs motion for an order of preclusion…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Securities And Exchange Commission v. Graystone Nash, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Hughes Capital Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
- Adams v. Securities & Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2002
- Harden v. Raffensperger, Hughes & Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1996
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.