Case Activity (376)

1. Appeal | Filed: June 22, 2026 | Entered: July 20, 2026 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Xia et al

   Securities/Commodities | New York Eastern

   USCA Order

   ORDER of USCA as to 783 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Richard Xia.It is hereby ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED and the appeals are DISMISSED because they lack[] an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam). It is further ORDERED that the stay motion is DENIED as moot. Certified Copy Issued: 6/22/2026. USCA# 25-2039. (VJ)

2. Order | Filed: July 17, 2026 | Entered: July 17, 2026 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Xia et al

   Securities/Commodities | New York Eastern

   Order(Other)

   ORDER: The Court hereby appoints Michael I. Goldberg as the liquidation receiver pursuant to the Court's March 6, 2026 Memorandum & Order, Dkt. 740 (finding that "pursuant to its equitable powers under the Securities Exchange Act, appointment of a receiver to liquidate the Eastern Mirage and Eastern Emerald Projects is warranted"). As proposed by Plaintiff SEC, attached is the Order specifying his authority and duties as liquidation receiver.

   While considering Mr. Goldberg's appointment and authority, the Court received Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC") 808 811 letters in support of his appointment, as well as Defendant Richard Xia's 810 letter opposing his appointment. However, Defendant Xia's two arguments opposing Mr. Goldberg's appointment were without merit. First, Defendant Xia requested that "the Court defer appointment of a Liquidation Receiver until the Second Circuit rules on [his] appeal" of the Court's 740 Order finding that appointment of a liquidation receiver was warranted. This is the same objection to the appointment of a liquidation receiver that the Court has already rejected. (See Mem. & Order, Dkt. 800). Moreover, this objection is not directed at the selection of the liquidation receiver or the scope of the receiver's authorities, which is what the Court gave Defendant Xia an opportunity to address. Second, Defendant Xia claims that certain filing errors led to his appeal never being docketed with the Court of Appeals. This point is moot as, regardless of when his appeal was ultimately filed, the Court of Appeals has now dismissed Defendant Xia's appeal of the Court's 740 Order. See Order, SEC v. Xia, No. 26-549 (2d Cir. June 22, 2026), Dkt. 27. The Court finds no reason not to appoint Michael I. Goldberg as the liquidation receiver with the authority and duties specified in the attached.

   Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 7/17/2026. (MBH)

3. 374 additional result(s)