Securities And Exchange Commission v. Brown et al, No. 3:2008cv03517 - Document 92 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFS. ROBERTS BROWN, JR. AND TREBOR COMPANY re 90 Stipulation filed by Securities And Exchange Commission. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/1/11. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2011)

Download PDF

Securities And Exchange Commission v. Brown et al Doc. 92 1 MARC J. FAGEL (Cal. Bar No. 154425) MARK P. FICKES (Cal. Bar No. 178570) fickesm@sec.gov 2 SUSAN L. LAMARCA (Cal. Bar No. 215231) lamarcas@sec.gov 3 JEREMY E. PENDREY (Cal. Bar No. 187075) pendreyj@sec.gov 4 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 6 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, California 94104 7 Telephone: (415) 705-2500 Facsimile: (415) 705-2501 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Case No. C 08-03517 EMC 14 Plaintiff, 15 vs. 16 ROBERT C. BROWN, JR. AND TREBOR COMPANY 17 (AKA TREBOR INVESTMENT COMPANY, TREBOR SEMINARS, TREBOR GROUP AND TREBOR GROUP 18 FUND), Defendants, 19 20 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS ROBERT C. BROWN, JR. AND TREBOR COMPANY and 21 DUANE EDDINGS, CDC GLOBAL, INC. AND WISE INVESTORS SIMPLY EXCEL, LLC, 22 Relief Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEC V. BROWN, ET AL., NO. C 08-03517 EMC [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS ROBERT C. BROWN, JR. 2 AND TREBOR COMPANY 3 I. 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants and 5 Defendants’ agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation 6 with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise are 7 permanently restrained and enjoined from violating, directly or indirectly, Section 10(b) of the 8 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 9 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], by using any means or instrumentality of interstate 10 commerce, or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, in connection with 11 the purchase or sale of any security: 12 (a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; 13 (b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact 14 necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances 15 under which they were made, not misleading; or 16 (c) 17 to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. 18 19 II. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants and 20 Defendants’ agents, servants, employees, attorneys-in-fact, and all persons in active concert or 21 participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or 22 otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the 23 Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and (2), by the use of any means or 24 instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, 25 directly or indirectly: 26 (a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or prospective client; or 27 (b) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud 28 or deceit upon any client or prospective client. SEC V. BROWN, ET AL., NO. C 08-03517 EMC 1 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 2 3 III. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Final Judgment. 4 5 7/1 DATED: ______________________, 2011 UNIT ED 10 . ward M udge Ed J NO 11 Chen RT 12 14 A H ER 13 R NIA ED Edward M. Chen O ORDER S IT I District Judge United States S 9 FO 8 RT U O S 7 S DISTRICT TE C TA LI 6 N D IS T IC T R OF C 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEC V. BROWN, ET AL., NO. C 08-03517 EMC 2 [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.