BLUE
Login
PostsUsersHashtags
BCbigcases.bots.law

New minute entry in SEC v. Binance: MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is a motion to intervene in this SEC enforcement action filed by Eeon 90, defendants Binance Holdings Limited and Changpeng Zhao's response 91, and the SEC's response… [full entry below 👇] [View Full Case]#CL67474542

The entry's text: MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is a motion to intervene in this SEC enforcement action filed by Eeon 90, defendants Binance Holdings Limited and Changpeng Zhao's response 91, and the SEC's response 92 ("SEC Opp."). Section 21(g) of the Exchange Act provides that "no action for equitable relief instituted by the Commission pursuant to the securities laws shall be consolidated or coordinated with other actions not brought by the Commission, even though such other actions may involve common questions of fact, unless such consolidation is consented to by the Commission." 15 U.S.C. § 78u(g); Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 332 n.17 (1979) (noting that 15 U.S.C. § 78u(g) prohibits the "consolidation of a private action with one brought by the SEC without its consent"); see also SEC v. Qualified Pensions, Inc., 1998 WL 29496, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 1998) ("[S]everal cases [] interpret [15 U.S.C. § 78u(g)] to bar all private cross-claims, counter-claims, and thir[d]-party claims to SEC enforcement actions."); SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20 CIV. 10832 (AT), 2021 WL 4555352, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2021) (holding that the statute bars claims for damages by non-SEC parties without the SEC's consent in the enforcement action to which they purport to relate). Because the SEC does not consent to Eeon's intervention, SEC Opp. at 2, the Court is bound by the statute to deny Eeon's request to join the case. In light of that ruling, it is not necessary to go further and consider whether Eeon has met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 24(a) or (b). Accordingly, the motion 90 is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 8/3/23. (DMK)
0
B2000hh60.bsky.social

Zum Teil ja. Und voller Hagel. Das läuft da halt immer rein. ABER: Die Höhe ist neu. Auf geschwommen sind in den letzten Jahren auch schon Autos, aber das ist jetzt definitiv mehr. Ich denke, dass das Parklane-/Pergolenviertel mit den versiegelten Flächen da mit rein spielt.

1
Rransomwarelive.bsky.social

According to https://ransomware.live, blackbasta ransomware group has added Parklane Group to its victims.

0
Rransomlook.bsky.social

New post from #Blackbasta : Parklane Group More at : https://www.ransomlook.io/group/Blackbasta #Ransomware

0
okiraku-tw.bsky.social

追加情報。Aが紹介したのは台中・Star Hostel Taichung Parklane（誠星青年旅館）。草悟道沿いの、街なかでありつつ公園のそば、にぎやかだけど落ち着いた場所でした。 starhostelparklane.com （B）

0
BCbigcases.bots.law

New minute entry in SEC v. Binance: MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is a motion to intervene in this SEC enforcement action filed by Eeon 90, defendants Binance Holdings Limited and Changpeng Zhao's response 91, and the SEC's response… [full entry below 👇] [View Full Case] #CL67474542

The entry's text: MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is a motion to intervene in this SEC enforcement action filed by Eeon 90, defendants Binance Holdings Limited and Changpeng Zhao's response 91, and the SEC's response 92 ("SEC Opp."). Section 21(g) of the Exchange Act provides that "no action for equitable relief instituted by the Commission pursuant to the securities laws shall be consolidated or coordinated with other actions not brought by the Commission, even though such other actions may involve common questions of fact, unless such consolidation is consented to by the Commission." 15 U.S.C. § 78u(g); Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 332 n.17 (1979) (noting that 15 U.S.C. § 78u(g) prohibits the "consolidation of a private action with one brought by the SEC without its consent"); see also SEC v. Qualified Pensions, Inc., 1998 WL 29496, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 1998) ("[S]everal cases [] interpret [15 U.S.C. § 78u(g)] to bar all private cross-claims, counter-claims, and thir[d]-party claims to SEC enforcement actions."); SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20 CIV. 10832 (AT), 2021 WL 4555352, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2021) (holding that the statute bars claims for damages by non-SEC parties without the SEC's consent in the enforcement action to which they purport to relate). Because the SEC does not consent to Eeon's intervention, SEC Opp. at 2, the Court is bound by the statute to deny Eeon's request to join the case. In light of that ruling, it is not necessary to go further and consider whether Eeon has met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 24(a) or (b). Accordingly, the motion 90 is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 8/3/23. (DMK)
0
HomePopularExplore