Securities and Exchange Commission v. Penn
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:14-cv-00581
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In SEC v. Penn, Judge Caproni denied Penn’s extension request and set concurrent briefing deadlines for the Camelot Entities’ Rule 60(b) motion.
Lawrence E. Penn III, the Camelot Entities, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other parties subject to the briefing and show-cause schedules.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Penn, the SEC was pursuing a motion concerning turnover of frozen assets after the court had entered judgments against the Camelot Entities. The Camelot Entities sought to pause the existing schedule while preparing a motion asking the court for relief from those judgments.
The SEC opposed a pause and argued that the Camelot Entities could brief both motions on overlapping schedules. The opinion also states that Penn moved for an extension of the schedule for responding to the court’s order to show cause.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni denied Penn’s extension request, set deadlines for the Camelot Entities’ Rule 60(b) motion, scheduled a telephone conference, and directed the clerk to terminate docket entries 355 and 363. The order did not decide the merits of the anticipated Rule 60(b) motion or the turnover motion.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Penn · No. 1:14-cv-00581
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 19, 2020
Background
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had a pending motion concerning turnover of frozen assets. The opinion states that the court previously granted the SEC’s summary-judgment motion against Camelot Acquisitions Secondary Opportunities Management, LLC and Camelot Group International, LLC, together called the “Camelot Entities,” and entered final judgments against them. The SEC had filed its papers on the turnover motion under an existing schedule.
The Camelot Entities sought to stay, or pause, briefing on the turnover motion until after they filed an anticipated motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a judgment or order. The SEC opposed the requested pause and argued that the Rule 60(b) motion and turnover motion could be briefed at the same time. The SEC also requested that the existing turnover schedule continue.
The opinion separately states that Lawrence E. Penn III moved for an extension of the schedule connected to the order to show cause. The court had previously found that Penn owned and “completely dominated” the Camelot Entities and had repeatedly sought to delay the litigation.
Ruling
The court agreed with the SEC that there was no reason the motions could not be briefed concurrently. It scheduled a telephone conference for August 25, 2020, and set the following deadlines for the Camelot Entities’ Rule 60(b) motion:
- September 4, 2020: the Camelot Entities’ motion papers; - September 18, 2020: the SEC’s opposition papers; and - September 25, 2020: the Camelot Entities’ reply papers.
The court denied Mr. Penn’s motion for an extension of the show-cause schedule, stating that he had long been on notice of the current schedule. It also directed the clerk to terminate docket entries 355 and 363.
Effect of the Order
This was a scheduling and case-management order. It did not decide whether the Camelot Entities were entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), whether the SEC was entitled to turnover of the frozen assets, or any other underlying merits issue. The order also noted that the schedule did not account for religious holidays and instructed the parties to be prepared to propose an alternative schedule if necessary.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.