U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 22903 / January 13, 2014
Securities and Exchange Commission v. InnoVida Holdings LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 12-cv-24326-Lenard
District Court Enters Default Judgment Against Defendant Claudio Osorio, Judgment of Permanent Injunction Against Defendant Innovida Holdings LLC., Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Against Defendant Craig Toll and Order Dismissing Case
The Commission announced that on November 26, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a Judgment of Permanent Injunction by consent, against Defendant Craig Toll, enjoining him from violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"). District Judge Joan A. Lenard additionally ordered the Defendant's disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and civil penalty, be dismissed as Toll was convicted in a parallel criminal case, sentenced to four years in prison, and ordered to pay restitution.
The Court previously had entered by default a permanent injunction against Defendant Claudio Osorio, enjoining him from violations of the same securities laws. The Court also barred Osorio and Toll from serving as officers or directors of public companies. On November 22, 2013, the Commission dismissed its civil penalty and disgorgement claims against Osorio because of his prison sentence and restitution order in the parallel criminal case.
The same day, the Court dismissed disgorgement and civil penalty claims against Defendant InnoVida Holdings because it is under the control of a bankruptcy trustee. The Court previously entered a judgment of permanent injunction against InnoVida by Consent.
The Commission commenced this action by filing its Complaint on December 7, 2012, against InnoVida, Osorio, and Toll. The Complaint alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
For more information on earlier actions in this case, see Litigation Release No. 22563 (Dec. 7, 2012) and Litigation Release No. 22689 (Apr. 26, 2013).