Legal Opinion
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Whittemore
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 9, 2010No. Civil Action 05-869 (RMC)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.
As a result of a civil judgment based on securities fraud pursuant to a “pump and dump” scheme, the Securities and Exchange Commission moves for disgorgement and penalties against Defendants Peter S. Cahill, David E. Whittemore, and Whittemore Management, Inc. (“WMI”). 1 Defendants each filed a Consent to the entry of judgment restraining and enjoining them from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. See Cahill’s Consent [Dkt. # 72] ¶ 3; Whittemore Defs.’…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Baxter v. PalmigianoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. And Robert E. BrennanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. First City Financial Corporation, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Paul A. BilzerianCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jt Wallenbrock & Associates Citadel Capital Management Group, Inc., and Larry Toshio Osaki Van Y. IchinotsuboCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. WhittemoreCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2011
- Alinejad v. Iran, the Islamic Republic ofDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2023
- Amirentezam v. Islamic Republic of IranDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2023