SEC v. Richard Grossman, No. LR-23590, District of Columbia (July 5, 2016) — Press Release
raw: Richard Grossman
Richard Grossman, No. 1:16-mc-01189 (D.D.C. July 5, 2016)
Richard Grossman, a New York resident, was accused of failing to comply with an SEC subpoena related to suspicious trading in Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. securities, but eventually complied, leading to the dismissal of the case without prejudice.
Richard Grossman, a New York resident, was accused of failing to comply with an SEC subpoena related to an investigation into potential securities law violations involving suspicious trading in Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. securities. The SEC sought enforcement of the subpoena, but Grossman eventually complied by producing documents and testifying before the Commission staff. The case was dismissed without prejudice after Grossman's compliance.
Richard Grossman, a New York resident, was accused of failing to comply with a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) subpoena related to an investigation into suspicious trading of Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. securities. The SEC sought enforcement of the subpoena after Grossman's attorney indicated he would not comply without a court order. On June 6, 2016, the SEC filed a subpoena enforcement action against Grossman, and the district court issued an order to show cause, directing Grossman to explain why he had refused to comply with the subpoena. Before responding to the district court's order or filing a response to the SEC's application for enforcement, Grossman produced documents responsive to the subpoena and appeared for sworn testimony at SEC headquarters on June 30, 2016. As a result, the SEC voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on July 1, 2016, and the court entered dismissal the same day. The SEC emphasized that no violations had been determined at that time, and its investigation remained ongoing.
Extracted insights
- person richard grossman
- SEC announced that, on July 1, 2016, it filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in its subpoena enforcement action against Richard Grossman, a resident of West Hempstead, New York
- SEC filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in its subpoena enforcement action against Richard Grossman, a resident of West Hempstead, New York
- SEC dismissed its subpoena enforcement action against Richard Grossman, a resident of West Hempstead, New York
- Richard Grossman complies with subpoena SEC subpoena enforcement action against him
- SEC filed notice of dismissal subpoena enforcement action against Richard Grossman
- SEC initiated subpoena enforcement against Richard Grossman, a New York resident
- Richard Grossman complies with subpoena
- Securities and Exchange Commission filed notice of voluntary dismissal
- Securities and Exchange Commission announced subpoena enforcement action
- Richard Grossman resides in West Hempstead, New York
- U.S. District Court filed litigation release
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 23590 / July 5, 2016 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Richard Grossman, No. 1:16-mc-01189 (GMH) (D.D.C. filed June 6, 2016) SEC Subpoena Enforcement Action Against New York Resident Dismissed After He Complies with Subpoena The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that, on July 1, 2016, it filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in its subpoena enforcement action against Richard Grossman, a resident of West Hempstead, New York. The Commission filed the notice after Grossman complied with the Commission's subpoena. After the notice was filed, on July 1, 2016, the district court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice. The subpoena, which was served on Grossman in April 2016, required that he produce certain documents and compelled his testimony before the Commission staff. The subpoena is related to the SEC's investigation into potential violations of the federal securities laws arising from suspicious trading in the securities of ophthalmology research and development company Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. According to the SEC's application for enforcement of the subpoena, an attorney representing Grossman told the staff that he would advise his client not to comply with the subpoena absent a court order. As a result, on June 6, 2016, the SEC filed the action seeking enforcement of the subpoena. On June 7, 2016, the district court issued an order to show cause, directing Grossman to explain why he had refused to comply with the subpoena. Before responding to the district court's order or filing a response to the SEC's application for enforcement, Grossman produced documents responsive to the subpoena and, on June 30, 2016, appeared for testimony at SEC headquarters, where he was sworn in and answered questions from the Commission staff. The SEC is continuing its fact-finding investigation in this matter and, to date, has not concluded that any individual or entity has violated the federal securities laws. See also: Litigation Release No. 23559 (June 6, 2016).
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 23590 / July 5, 2016 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Richard Grossman, No. 1:16-mc-01189 (GMH) (D.D.C. filed June 6, 2016) SEC Subpoena Enforcement Action Against New York Resident Dismissed After He Complies with Subpoena The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that, on July 1, 2016, it filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in its subpoena enforcement action against Richard Grossman, a resident of West Hempstead, New York. The Commission filed the notice after Grossman complied with the Commission's subpoena. After the notice was filed, on July 1, 2016, the district court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice. The subpoena, which was served on Grossman in April 2016, required that he produce certain documents and compelled his testimony before the Commission staff. The subpoena is related to the SEC's investigation into potential violations of the federal securities laws arising from suspicious trading in the securities of ophthalmology research and development company Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. According to the SEC's application for enforcement of the subpoena, an attorney representing Grossman told the staff that he would advise his client not to comply with the subpoena absent a court order. As a result, on June 6, 2016, the SEC filed the action seeking enforcement of the subpoena. On June 7, 2016, the district court issued an order to show cause, directing Grossman to explain why he had refused to comply with the subpoena. Before responding to the district court's order or filing a response to the SEC's application for enforcement, Grossman produced documents responsive to the subpoena and, on June 30, 2016, appeared for testimony at SEC headquarters, where he was sworn in and answered questions from the Commission staff. The SEC is continuing its fact-finding investigation in this matter and, to date, has not concluded that any individual or entity has violated the federal securities laws. See also: Litigation Release No. 23559 (June 6, 2016).