2026-03-05 sec-litreleases pdf 127 KB 1,627 chars

SEC v. DeAndre Cortez Way; and Justin Sun, No. 1:23-cv-02433, Southern District of New York (Mar. 5, 2026)

raw: claims alleged against DeAndre Cortez Way in this ac tion. The SEC’s

claims alleged against DeAndre Cortez Way in this ac tion. The SEC’s, No. 1:23-cv-02433 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2026)

Caption
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sun

Enriched metadata

Scheme
crypto-securities (90%)
Court
Southern District of New York
Case No.
1:23-cv-02433
Classified crypto-securities(confidence 90%). EDGAR detection: forms 1-A/S-1/8-K· recall 43% / precision 2%. detection rule →
Parties
Securities and Exchange CommissionJustin SunBitTorrent Foundation Ltd.DeAndre Cortez WayTron Foundation LimitedAustin MahoneRainberry, Inc.
Keywords
secclaims againstadam gottliebagainstagainst deandredeandre cortezsecurities exchangeexchange commissionclaimswaydismissalserved answergottlieb adamdocument pagedeandre

Extracted insights

Entities 6
  • person Adam B. Gottlieb ×2
  • person Deandre Cortez Way
  • person Justin Sun
  • agency Securities and Exchange Commission
  • person this action against him
  • organization United States District Court Southern District Of New York
Triples 3
  • Securities and Exchange Commission voluntarily dismisses the claims alleged against DeAndre Cortez Way
  • Securities and Exchange Commission may dismiss this action against him
  • Adam B. Gottlieb submitted the notice of voluntary dismissal
Text layers
Extracted body text (1,627c)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

          vs.

JUSTIN SUN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-2433 (ER)

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) provides notice that it

voluntarily dismisses the claims alleged against DeAndre Cortez Way in this action. The SEC’s

decision to seek dismissal of this enforcement action is an exercise of its discretion and does not

necessarily reflect the SEC’s position on any other case. Defendant Way has not served “an

answer or a motion for summary judgment” so the SEC may dismiss this action against him

“without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal.” Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Gugliano

v. Danbury Hospital, 396 F. Supp. 2d 220, 224 (D. Conn. 2005) (permitting dismissal of claims

against a defendant who had not served an answer while litigation continued against a second

defendant); see also Blaize-Sampeur v. McDowell, No. 05-CV-4275, 2007 WL 1958909, at *2

(E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2007) (collecting cases supporting the use of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to dismiss

single claims or specific defendants).

Dated: March 5, 2026 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Adam B. Gottlieb
Adam B. Gottlieb
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street NE
Washington, DC 20549
Tel: (202) 551-8299
Email: [email protected]

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I certify that on March 5, 2026, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be filed

through the Court’s ECF system, which will serve a copy on all counsel of record.

/s/ Adam B. Gottlieb
Adam B. Gottlieb
OCR text (1,813c · textlayer · 95% conf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

          vs. 

JUSTIN SUN, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:23-cv-2433 (ER) 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) provides notice that it 

voluntarily dismisses the claims alleged against DeAndre Cortez Way in this action. The SEC’s 

decision to seek dismissal of this enforcement action is an exercise of its discretion and does not 

necessarily reflect the SEC’s position on any other case. Defendant Way has not served “an 

answer or a motion for summary judgment” so the SEC may dismiss this action against him 

“without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal.” Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Gugliano 

v. Danbury Hospital, 396 F. Supp. 2d 220, 224 (D. Conn. 2005) (permitting dismissal of claims 

against a defendant who had not served an answer while litigation continued against a second 

defendant); see also Blaize-Sampeur v. McDowell, No. 05-CV-4275, 2007 WL 1958909, at *2 

(E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2007) (collecting cases supporting the use of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to dismiss 

single claims or specific defendants). 

Dated: March 5, 2026 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Adam B. Gottlieb 
Adam B. Gottlieb 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
100 F Street NE 
Washington, DC 20549 
Tel: (202) 551-8299 
Email: [email protected] 

Case 1:23-cv-02433-ER     Document 97     Filed 03/05/26     Page 1 of 2



2 
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I certify that on March 5, 2026, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be filed 

through the Court’s ECF system, which will serve a copy on all counsel of record. 

/s/ Adam B. Gottlieb 
Adam B. Gottlieb 

Case 1:23-cv-02433-ER     Document 97     Filed 03/05/26     Page 2 of 2