Securities & Exchange Commission v. Akshay Kamboj, et al.

S.D. New York

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Akshay Kamboj, et al.

DecidedDecember 1, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-07319

StatusUnknown

This text of Securities & Exchange Commission v. Akshay Kamboj, et al. (Securities & Exchange Commission v. Akshay Kamboj, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Akshay Kamboj, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 12/1/2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMISSION, : : Plaintiff, : 1:24-cv-7319-GHW : -v- : ORDER : AKSHAY KAMBOJ, et al., : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions in advance of the hearing on the order to show cause why a default judgment should not be entered against Defendants. Dkt Nos. 27–30. The Court understands that Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief to enjoin future violations of the securities laws. Dkt. No. 28 at 18–22. The Second Circuit has identified several factors that district courts consider in granting such relief, including “whether the infraction was an isolated occurrence.” See SEC v. Cavanaugh, 155 F.3d 129, 135 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). In prior cases, courts have found that conduct does not constitute an “isolated occurrence” when there had been multiple independent violations, see id., or where the scheme at issue lasted for a period of years, SEC v. Hansen, No. 13-CV-1403 (VSB), 2017 WL 1298022, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017), aff’d, 712 F. App’x 99 (2d Cir. 2018). If Plaintiff intends to seek such relief, the Court directs Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing on why the conduct at issue in this case is not an “isolated occurrence” within the meaning of Cavanaugh. Such supplemental briefing should be filed no later than December 2, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Plaintiff 1s directed to serve a copy of this order on Defendants by sending it via email to the same email addresses by which service was effectuated on May 5, 2025. Dkt. No. 18. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2025 New York, New York / . : { A GRE H. WOODS United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 12/1/2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMISSION, : : Plaintiff, : 1:24-cv-7319-GHW : -v- : ORDER : AKSHAY KAMBOJ, et al., : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions in advance of the hearing on the order to show cause why a default judgment should not be entered against Defendants. Dkt Nos. 27–30. The Court understands that Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief to enjoin future violations of the securities laws. Dkt. No. 28 at 18–22. The Second Circuit has identified several factors that district courts consider in granting such relief, including “whether the infraction was an isolated occurrence.” See SEC v. Cavanaugh, 155 F.3d 129, 135 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). In prior cases, courts have found that conduct does not constitute an “isolated occurrence” when there had been multiple independent violations, see id., or where the scheme at issue lasted for a period of years, SEC v. Hansen, No. 13-CV-1403 (VSB), 2017 WL 1298022, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017), aff’d, 712 F. App’x 99 (2d Cir. 2018). If Plaintiff intends to seek such relief, the Court directs Plaintiff to submit supplemental briefing on why the conduct at issue in this case is not an “isolated occurrence” within the meaning of Cavanaugh. Such supplemental briefing should be filed no later than December 2, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Plaintiff 1s directed to serve a copy of this order on Defendants by sending it via email to the same email addresses by which service was effectuated on May 5, 2025. Dkt. No. 18. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2025 New York, New York / . : { A GRE H. WOODS United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Akshay Kamboj, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-exchange-commission-v-akshay-kamboj-et-al-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack