Legal Opinion
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Sassano
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 31, 2011No. 09 Civ. 5010(LBS)(GWG)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has moved to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum served on the defendant’s attorneys seeking financial information about the defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to compel is granted.
*496I. BACKGROUND
In 2007, the SEC instituted administrative proceedings against Michael Sassano pursuant to section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, sections 15(b)(6) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon John Doe, Esq. Richard Roe, Intervenor-Appellant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon Gerald L. Shargel, Esq. John Doe, Intervenor-Appellant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- In Re Refco Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Credit Lyonnais (Suisse), S.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
3Cited by2 opinions
- New Concept Energy, Inc. v. GentileDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2025
- Whipper v. GreenDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2024