Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kamboj
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-07319
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Akshay Kamboj, Judge Woods ordered supplemental briefing on why the conduct was not isolated before deciding requested relief.
The Securities and Exchange Commission must provide supplemental briefing, and defendants Akshay Kamboj and the other defendants are to receive a copy of the order.
What happened
In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Akshay Kamboj, et al., the Securities and Exchange Commission sought permanent injunctive relief to prevent future securities-law violations. The court reviewed the Commission’s submissions before a hearing on why default judgment should not be entered against the defendants.
The court noted that whether the conduct was an isolated occurrence is one factor relevant to granting a permanent injunction. It directed the Commission to explain why the conduct in this case was not isolated, citing examples involving multiple independent violations or schemes lasting several years.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the Commission to file supplemental briefing by December 2, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., if it intended to pursue the permanent injunction. He also directed the Commission to serve the order on the defendants by email.
The detailed version
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kamboj · No. 1:24-cv-07319
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
The Securities and Exchange Commission submitted materials before a hearing on an order to show cause—an order requiring the defendants to explain why default judgment should not be entered against them. The Commission sought permanent injunctive relief barring future violations of the securities laws.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the Second Circuit identifies several factors relevant to whether a permanent injunction should issue. One factor is whether the conduct was an “isolated occurrence.” The court cited prior decisions in which conduct was found not to be isolated because it involved multiple independent violations or because the relevant scheme lasted for several years.
The court directed the Commission to provide supplemental briefing explaining why the conduct at issue here was not an isolated occurrence under the Second Circuit’s standard. The opinion does not decide whether a permanent injunction should be entered or state that default judgment was entered.
Order
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the Commission to file the supplemental briefing by December 2, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., if it intended to seek permanent injunctive relief. He also directed the Commission to serve the order on the defendants by sending it to the same email addresses used to serve them on May 5, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.