Starshinova v. Batratchenko
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
931 F. Supp. 2d 478 (2013)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Tamara Starshinova, Marina Vasilanskaya, and Rafail Tzentziper (collectively, the investors) (plaintiffs), all citizens of Russia, invested millions of dollars with several entities, known as the Thor entities (defendants), owned or controlled by Oleg Batratchenko (defendant), a United States citizen residing in Russia. The investors alleged that Batratchenko purported to invest their funds through the Thor entities into various stock, commodity, and real estate ventures. Account statements issued by Batratchenko indicated returns as high as 50 percent. However, Batratchenko refused to allow the investors to remove their funds, claiming that redemption was complicated due to United States financial-market regulations and because the funds were tied up in illiquid investments such as real estate. The investors filed an action against Batratchenko on behalf of themselves and 551 other individuals, seeking damages for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). Batratchenko moved to dismiss, arguing that the CEA did not apply extraterritorially, citing a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Morrison v. National Australian Bank, which limited the territorial reach of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wood, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.