Free Order on Motion to Dismiss Counts/Claims - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

_ -4 - he
1 1 -
2 .
3
4
5
l
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
1 1
12
13 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case N0. CV—O3-1862-PHX-FIM
COMMISSION, I ./""
14 ORDER DISMISSING
Plaintifi WITHOUT PIIEJUDICE CLAIMS FOR
15 DISGORGEMENT, PREJUDGMENT
v. INTEREST AND PENALTY AGAINST
16 DEFENDANTS MILLENNIUM CAPITAL
MILLENNIUM CAPITAL HEDGE HEDGE FUND, L.P., AND MILLENNIUM
17 FUND, L.P.; MILLENNIUM CAPITAL CAPITAL GR0UP, LLC
GROUP, LLC; and ANDREAS F.
18 ZYBELL,
19 Defendants. `
20
21 _
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 2:03-cv-01862-FJIVI Document 85 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 1 of 2
"

.:1 1 Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Connnission”), havingmoved
I 2 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(a)(2) to dismiss, without prejudice, the Commission’s
3 claims for disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties against Defendant
4 Millexmium Capital Hedge Fund, L.P., ("Fund") and Millennium Capital Group, LLC
5 ("MLLC”), and good cause having been shown therefor:
6 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
7 DECREED THAT:
8 This Court now dismisses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(2), without prejudice,
9 the claims of Plaintiff Commission for disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil
IO penalties against the Fund and MLLC only.
ll Notwithstanding the foregoing dismissal, all Injunctions previously entered by this
12 Cou1·t against the Fund and MLLC shall remain in full force and effect. Each of these
13 Defendants previously was enjoined by consent from further violations of Sections 5(a)
14 and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (”Securities Act") , 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) & 77e(c),
15 the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and
16 Section l0(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. §
17 78j(b), and Rule 10b—5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Defendant MLLC also was
lg enjoined by consent from further violations of the antifraud provisions of Sections 206(l)
19 and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-
20 6(l) & 80b-6(2). The Fund was further enjoined by consent from further violations of
21 Section 7(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("Investment Company Act"), 15
22 usc. § sca-ne).
23
24 SO ORDERED this i day of {gg , 2005
25 A , F
~ 26 <:’j.€'i.C`.`Q;§j" L
27 U ~ it -l A - e Di ti?i1cttO11ii:d ge
gg ermiiiememeieeeiesioae on Request to rseeree meeeeeemem Claims
Case 2:03-cv-01862-FJIVI Document 85 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-01862-FJM

Document 85

Filed 11/14/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-01862-FJM

Document 85

Filed 11/14/2005

Page 2 of 2