Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 1 of 26 TRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GREIFF S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 1 of 26 TRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GREIFF S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE"

Transcription

1 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Debtor. IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, Adv. Pro. No (BRL) SIPA LIQUIDATION (Substantively Consolidated) Adv. Pro. No (BRL) v. Plaintiff, JAMES GREIFF, 11 Civ (JSR) Defendant. TRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GREIFF S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff

2 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 2 of 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT... 1 BACKGROUND... 4 ARGUMENT I. THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE DISPARATE CLAIMS AND ISSUES EXIST, AND THE TRUSTEE WOULD SUFFER SIGNIFICANT PREJUDICE AS A RESULT OF CONSOLIDATION Page A. Disparate Claims and Issues Exist B. Substantial Prejudice C. The Trustee Did Not Consent To Consolidation Of The Cases D. The Merits Of Any Anticipated Amended Complaint Are Irrelevant To The Issue Of Consolidation CONCLUSION i-

3 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 3 of 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Argo Comm. Corp. v. Centel Corp., et al., 91 Civ. 7226, 1992 WL (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 1992) Bank of Montreal v. Eagle Assocs., 117 F.R.D. 530 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) Caronia v. Hustedt Chevrolet, Nos , , , and , 2009 WL (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2009) Devlin v. Transportation Communs. Int l Union, 175 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 1999) In re Prudential Sec. Inc. Ltd. P ships. Litig., 158 F.R.D. 562 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1990)... 15, 17 Picard v. Hein, 11 Civ (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2011) Picard v. Katz, No. 11 Civ. 3605, 2011 WL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2011) Rio Energy Intern., Inc. v. Hilton Oil Transport, 776 F.Supp. 120 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) Walker, Truesdel, Roth & Assocs., et al. v. The Blackstone Group, L.P., et al. (In re Extended Stay, Inc.), 2011 WL (S.D.N.Y. November 10, 2011) Statutes 11 U.S.C. 546(e) U.S.C. 547(b)(4)(B) U.S.C. 157(d) Rules F.R.Civ.Pr. Rule , 9, 17, 21 F.R.Civ.Pr. Rule 42(a) Other Authorities 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2382 (3d ed. 2011) ii-

4 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 4 of 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page Financial Management, Work Force, and Operations at the SEC: Who s Watching Wall Street s Watchdog: Joint Hearing before the Comm. On Oversight & Gov t Reform, 112 th Cong (March 3, 2011) (written testimony of Helen Davis Chaitman), Testimony.pdf... 6 Testimony of Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq. Before the Subcomm. on Capital Mkts., Ins., and Gov t Sponsored Enterprises, 110th Cong (Dec. 9, 2009), 6 iii

5 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 5 of 26 Irving H. Picard (the Trustee ), as trustee for the substantively consolidated liquidation of the business of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ( BLMIS ) under the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 78aa et seq. ( SIPA ) and the estate of Bernard L. Madoff ( Madoff ) submits this memorandum of law and accompanying declaration of Oren J. Warshavsky ( Warshavsky Decl. ) in opposition to the motion to consolidate filed on behalf of Defendant James Greiff ( Greiff ). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Although the Trustee has repeatedly consented to join parties and consolidate actions in the interest of efficiency, the Trustee cannot agree to the within motion to consolidate (the Consolidation Motion ). The Consolidation Motion is yet another attempt by Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq., counsel for Greiff, to create unwieldy litigation and hinder the sound resolution of these cases. Consistent throughout this liquidation, the Trustee has tried to cooperate with all of the various parties to streamline arguments, briefing and disposition of issues and otherwise accommodate parties and their counsel. To this end, the Trustee has tried to group arguments and parties and consented to so-called joinders to expedite the resolution of issues as to as many parties as possible. Indeed, before the parade of withdrawal motions occurred, the very issues currently before this Court in a variety of actions were set for common briefing before Judge Lifland with many of the defendants represented by the same counsel. The statements of the Trustee s counsel, David J. Sheehan, were made at oral argument on November 10, 2011 with the intent to express the same understanding; most, if not all of these issues should be the same for every typical innocent investor certainly for each defendant that has made the same argument and the Trustee has voiced similar opposition. 1

6 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 6 of 26 Why then does the Trustee object to the joinder or consolidation of approximately 125 Cases 1 here? There are several answers. First, the Trustee seeks to preserve his right to object to the withdrawal of the reference for these 400+ defendants. On July 28, 2011, this Court told Ms. Chaitman that she would need to make motions in each of the Cases. She chose not to do so until well after the motion to withdraw the reference was decided in the within case starting to file on November 4, 2011 and finishing on December 9, The Trustee should not be forced to waive his objections because Ms. Chaitman decided to belatedly file her joinders. Second, the Trustee likewise seeks to preserve his right to amend his complaint against any defendant pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Many defendants suggest that there is a debt based upon the false statements issued by BLMIS (whether arguing antecedent debt or as a methodology for calculating fictitious profits). The Trustee has a right to amend his complaint against any defendant to avoid any obligations that they claim exist by virtue of BLMIS s fictitious statements, or for any other reason. 2 Third, these defendants are not all similarly situated. Included in the list of defendants sought to be added to the within action are: (1) statutory insiders Mr. Madoff s sister-in-law and her husband; (2) two entities that have settlements in principle with the Trustee; and (3) according to Ms. Chaitman, defendants in more than 20 Cases who seek to raise additional issues. Ms. Chaitman addresses only one of these issues, proclaiming the innocence of Mr. Madoff s family; her opinion is irrelevant and cannot serve as a basis for consolidation. 1 All of the cases in which Ms. Chaitman seeks joinder and/or consolidation herein are referred to as the Cases. 2 In other similar cases, the Trustee raised no objection to the joinders, regardless of procedural infirmities, because such joinders did not seek to deprive the Trustee of his right to amend. 2

7 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 7 of 26 Fourth, none of the other defendants represented by Ms. Chaitman have moved here. The application is made only by Greiff, and he has not alleged any reason why consolidation is appropriate for his case. Likewise, parties to some of these actions, not represented by Ms. Chaitman, have not filed a motion to consolidate or joined this application, nor does it appear that they have even been given notice of this application. Fifth, the Trustee did not consent to consolidate. The main argument made by Ms. Chaitman is that the Trustee waived all of his rights when, at oral argument, his counsel stated that the legal arguments would be the same for all of her similarly situated clients. She is wrong. In three separate conferences with the Court, and other correspondence with counsel, Ms. Chaitman repeatedly stated that she understood the Trustee s position that these various Cases would not be joined or consolidated with Greiff. And this position was advantageous for a number of her clients, as she sought to raise new issues on their behalf. The first time Ms. Chaitman made the argument regarding waiver was during the teleconference on December 16, 2011 when the Court asked whether the Trustee had waived his objection. Of course, as stated above, the Trustee believes that streamlining resolution of common legal issues should be a goal. As Mr. Sheehan stated in Court on November 10, 2011, the legal arguments raised by Greiff s motion to dismiss would be similar for all similarly situated innocent investors raising the same legal challenges to the Trustee s complaint. At various times, the Trustee offered to engage in common briefing. The Trustee offered to try to stay cases pending final resolution in certain test cases. The Trustee offered to work with Ms. Chaitman and others on a Court ordered stipulation which would preserve all rights of the parties while treating issues as decided commonly. All of those offers have been rejected. 3

8 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 8 of 26 Decidedly, defendants created the procedural quagmire by waiting more than 3 months to begin filing the 124 joinders and taking more than 4 months to complete the process. Also, they did so knowing that in more than 25 of the Cases, there were clear issues that preclude joinder or consolidation. That the Trustee s counsel at oral argument honestly assessed that the different defendants raising the same arguments would be treated similarly does not affect the analysis these individuals have various means for expediting resolution of their cases. However joinder or consolidation of the Cases to the within action, explicitly waiving the Trustee s rights (as well as those of other defendants), is not the solution. BACKGROUND A. Joinder to Abel Ms. Chaitman filed 124 joinders seeking to join the defendants whom she represents with Picard v. Abel, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL); No. 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR) (ECF No. 1) (the Abel Action ). The Trustee consented to that request for all but four of the defendants requested by Ms. Chaitman and proposed consolidation with the Abel Action accordingly. See Warshavsky Decl. at Exhibit 6. B. Prior History The Trustee s efforts to reach an accord with Ms. Chaitman and her clients are stymied due to a personalization of the issues. In this case alone, Ms. Chaitman wrongly accused the Trustee of having an impermissible fee arrangement, publicly questioning his integrity based on 4

9 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 9 of 26 the alleged statement of an unidentified witness 3 and then wrongly accusing the Trustee of issuing a press release commenting on this litigation. 4 This is just the latest in a litany of attacks including, inter alia: (i) suing the Trustee for breach of fiduciary duty; 5 (ii) challenging the reasonableness of the Trustee s settlements, on the one hand, for recovering too much and on the 3 During a hearing on July 28, 2010, Ms. Chaitman alleged that the nature of the Trustee s compensation arrangement created a conflict because he was a quasi-governmental actor based on an alleged conversation with an unspecified lawyer in New Jersey. The Court recognized the tenuous nature of Ms. Chaitman s allegation as set forth in the following dialogue: THE COURT: The compensation of Mr. Picard, according to Ms. Chaitman, is on a percentage basis. MR. BELL: That is incorrect. THE COURT: Well, I don t know that, all I know is what she is alleging. THE COURT: That may be. Let me let you off the hook for the moment, and I want to inquire of Ms. Chaitman: What is the basis for these allegations? MS. CHAITMAN: Your Honor, the basis is that I have been informed by a personal friend of Mr. Picard that he was compensated THE COURT: Who? MS. CHAITMAN: A lawyer in New Jersey. THE COURT: Who? MS. CHAITMAN: You know, unfortunately I can t remember his name, but let me finish. What happened was he told me Mr. Picard was compensated on the basis of 33 to 50 percent of the billing Baker & Hostetler collected. THE COURT: Did you have any other basis? MS. CHAITMAN: No. When we argued THE COURT: So wait a minute, let me just forgive me for interrupting, but on the basis of some hearsay comment from someone who may or may not have had personal knowledge, and who must be so little known to you that you can t even remember his name, you made an allegation of unethical or biased approach by Mr. Picard? That seems an awfully weak read to make such an allegation. Transcript of Oral Argument at 7-8, 12, Picard v. Greiff, No. 11 Civ (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2011). 4 Transcript of Oral Argument at 13-14, Picard v. Greiff, No. 11 Civ (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2011). 5 Peskin v. Picard, Adv. Pro. No (BRL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009), aff d 09 Civ (JGK) (S.D.N.Y. 2010), appeal docketed, No (2d Cir. Nov. 23, 2010). 5

10 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 10 of 26 other, for not recovering enough; 6 (iii) objecting to procedures to efficiently administer the cases; 7 (iv) challenging that the Department of Justice may seek the Trustee s assistance in connection with the Madoff forfeiture; 8 (v) suing the directors and the president of SIPC personally; 9 (vi) moving to compel the Trustee s production of his investigative reports and financial records; 10 and (vii) testifying to Congress that the Trustee s methodologies are improper and that he has breached his duties to BLMIS customers See, e.g., Picard v. Picower, Adv. Pro. No (BRL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (objection to Trustee s motion for entry of order approving $5 billion settlement and issuance of permanent injunction, denied) (ECF No. 32), (appeal of Court s order approving $5 billion settlement and issuing permanent injunction) (ECF No. 45); BLMIS, Adv. Pro. No (BRL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), (ECF No. 3860) (motion to vacate Levy settlement order, denied), (ECF No. 4005) (notice of appeal of order denying motion to vacate Levy settlement order). 7 See, e.g., BLMIS, Adv. Pro. No (BRL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), (ECF No. 2567) (opposition on customer motion), (ECF No. 3110) (objection to avoidance action procedures motion, overruled), (ECF No. 3111) (objection to settlement approval procedures motion, overruled). 8 See United States v. Madoff, No. 09-CR-213 (DC) (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF No. 110) (reconsideration motion denied). 9 See Canavan v. Harbeck, No. 10-CV (FSH) (PS) (D.N.J.). 10 See BLMIS, Adv. Pro. No (BRL) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (ECF No. 4045) (motion denied). 11 See, e.g., Financial Management, Work Force, and Operations at the SEC: Who s Watching Wall Street s Watchdog: Joint Hearing before the Comm. On Oversight & Gov t Reform, 112 th Cong (March 3, 2011) (written testimony of Helen Davis Chaitman), Testimony.pdf; Testimony of Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq. Before the Subcomm. on Capital Mkts., Ins., and Gov t Sponsored Enterprises, 110th Cong (Dec. 9, 2009), 6

11 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 11 of 26 C. Greiff s Motion to Withdraw the Reference and Facts Relevant to Proposed Consolidation Greiff filed a Motion for Mandatory Withdrawal of the Reference (the Motion ) in Picard v. Greiff, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL); No. 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR) (ECF No. 1) (the Greiff Action ) on June 2, By virtue of reference in a footnote, Ms. Chaitman, purported to file the Motion on behalf of 313 defendants in 108 separate clawback actions. Motion, 1 nn.1 and 2. From the outset, the Trustee pointed out that there was no procedural basis permitting withdrawal of the reference in 108 actions where no motions to withdraw such references were filed. See Trustee s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant s Motion for Mandatory Withdrawal of the Reference, 1 n.3 (ECF No. 11). This Court noted this procedural infirmity during the hearing on the Motion. See Transcript of Oral Argument at 3, Picard v. Greiff, 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2011). Notwithstanding, Greiff has repeatedly amended his caption by adding et al. in an attempt to unilaterally add parties to this action. On September 15, 2011, this Court withdrew the reference to the Greiff Action for the limited purpose of addressing two discrete legal issues, namely: (1) whether the Trustee may avoid transfers BLMIS made in order to satisfy antecedent debts, and (2) whether 11 U.S.C. 546(e) applies to this case, limiting the Trustee s ability to avoid transfers. (ECF No. 19). Greiff added a variety of issues to his papers including challenging whether Madoff truly operated a Ponzi scheme. On October 24, 2011, the Court issued a ruling that none of the new issues raised by Greiff other than the methodology for calculating fictitious profits would require briefing. (ECF No. 29). These issues are sub judice on Greiff s motion to dismiss, which were fully briefed on November 1, After the Greiff Action was fully briefed, and nearly five months after the Motion was 7

12 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 12 of 26 filed, Ms. Chaitman filed a subsequent Motion for Mandatory Withdrawal of the Reference in the Abel Action. Thereafter, in a series of machinations intended to rectify the joinder misstatement identified above in the Greiff Action, beginning on November 4, 2011, Ms. Chaitman filed 124 joinders seeking to join the Cases to the Abel Action. The last of these joinders was filed as recently as December 9, 2011 (see Picard v. Speer, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL)). In the interim, on November 10, 2011, at the hearing on Defendant Greiff s motion to dismiss the Greiff Action, Ms. Chaitman represented to the Court that she filed 121 motions to withdraw the reference to the Greiff Action. See Transcript of Oral Argument at 4, Picard v. Greiff, 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2011) (a copy of the Transcript is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Warshavsky Decl.). However, this was incorrect. Ms. Chaitman had actually filed 121 joinders to the Abel Action, not this action. She also failed to disclose that 22 of these Cases (including the Abel Action) interpose an entirely new legal issue, i.e., whether IRA withdrawals are protected from being avoided as fraudulent transfers. See Exhibit 2 of Warshavsky Decl. The IRA withdrawal issues are not implicated in the Greiff Action. Ms. Chaitman further neglected to disclose to the Court that two of the Cases that she seeks to consolidate with the Greiff Action involve statutory insiders because the defendants therein are relatives of the Debtor Mr. Madoff s wife s sister and her husband The matters of Picard v. Joan Roman, 11 Civ (JSR) and Picard v. Robert Roman, 11 Civ (JSR), involve Mr. Madoff s sister-in-law and her husband, who are relatives of the Debtor within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code sections 101(31)(A)(i) and 101(45). See 11 U.S.C. 101(31)(A)(i) and 101(45) ( [t]he term relative means individual related by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree as determined by the common law, or individual in a step or adoptive relationship within such third degree. ). 8

13 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 13 of 26 And, Ms. Chaitman did not disclose that she seeks to consolidate two other actions that she has settled in principle with the Trustee. 13 On November 15, 2011, during a conference with Ms. Chaitman and the Chambers of the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff ( Chambers ), Oren Warshavsky, counsel for the Trustee, advised the Court that the Trustee would agree to consolidate the Cases with the Greiff Action, treating them all as though they have been withdrawn and filed motions to dismiss along with Greiff, provided that the Trustee s absolute right to amend the complaints against the defendants in each of those actions, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was preserved for a period of twenty-one (21) days after any decision by the Court in the Greiff Action. See Warshavsky Decl. at 4. Counsel for the Trustee also sought to preserve his objection to the withdrawal of the reference in those actions. Id. During this Chambers conference, Ms. Chaitman indicated that at least 40 of the Cases were not ripe for consolidation because the joinders in those cases had not yet been transmitted to the District Court, and that approximately 20 of the joinders would not be to the Greiff Action but would be to a different case Picard v. Blumenthal, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL); No. 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR) ( Blumenthal Action ). Id. In a follow-up discussion with the Court on the same day, the parties were informed that these 122 Cases would not be consolidated with the Greiff Action. Warshavsky Decl. at 5. Despite the November 15 conferences, Ms. Chaitman s office sent an to Chambers on November 22, 2011, titled Cases to be consolidated with Picard v. Greiff, enclosing a list of 13 There are settlements in principle in both Picard v. S&P Associates, General Partnership, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL); 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR); and Picard v. P&S Associates, General Partnership, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL); 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR), and proposed settlement agreements were sent to Ms. Chaitman. 9

14 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 14 of Cases in which Ms. Chaitman represents certain defendants. (A copy of the , dated November 22, 2011, is annexed as Exhibit 3 to the Warshavsky Decl.) When the Trustee objected to this communication, Ms. Chaitman stated that the communication did not seek joinder to the instant action. After additional correspondence in which counsel for the Trustee sought her availability for a Chambers conference, Ms. Chaitman responded As you know, Judge Rakoff indicated that there will be no joinder, in view of your position. Hence, I frankly have no idea why you are making such an issue of this... Your posturing is silly. See from Helen Davis Chaitman, dated November 25, 2011, attached as Exhibit 4 to Warshavsky Decl. Although the Trustee disagrees that the Court s indication was based solely on his request to preserve rights, (i.e., it was also based upon the fact that certain of the Cases had not yet been filed and certain others sought to raise new issues), Ms. Chaitman s understanding here is unequivocal. Nonetheless, to ensure that there was no confusion, on November 28, 2011, the Trustee convened a conference with the Court and Ms. Chaitman to clarify that the Trustee had not consented to the consolidation of the Cases with the Greiff Action. Ms. Chaitman agreed and once again indicated that she was not attempting such joinder. During this conference, Chambers confirmed that the November 22 was not seeking consolidated with the Greiff Action and the list was viewed merely as an updated roster of Ms. Chaitman s clients. See Warshavsky Decl. at 8. In a decision issued on November 28, 2011, the Court suggested that the parties stipulate to the consolidation of the Greiff Action with other similarly situated actions. See Opinion, 2 n. 1 (emphasis added), at Exhibit 5 to Warshavsky Decl. By dated December 13, 2011, the Trustee proposed to stipulate to the consolidation of all but four of Ms. Chaitman s Cases to the 10

15 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 15 of 26 Abel Action. See , dated December 13, 2011, attached as Exhibit 6 to Warshavsky Decl. It is the Trustee s position, as more fully set forth below, that there are numerous reasons why the Cases are not similarly situated actions, thus precluding consolidation with the Greiff Action. See Warshavsky Decl. at Exhibit 7; infra Section I. D. Prior Joinders and Consolidations In the Consolidation Motion, Ms. Chaitman now states that the Cases she seeks to consolidate involve 124 substantively identical complaints against 380 defendants Consolidation Motion, 1. Ms. Chaitman s Consolidation Motion, however, fails to disclose that the Cases at issue actually involve over 420 defendants, at least 43 of whom are not represented by Ms. Chaitman and to whom notice of the Consolidation Motion was not given. Id. Indeed, several of the Cases have multiple defendants who are represented by other counsel, and other defendants whose representation status is unclear. 14 Ms. Chaitman also failed to disclose that four of the Cases that she is seeking to consolidate with the Greiff Action include parties whose claims have already been joined to other actions. For example, in Picard v. Robert Potamkin, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL); 11. Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR) and 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR) ( Potamkin Action ), a joinder was filed on June 28, 2011 by Milberg LLP on behalf of Robert Potamkin and Alan Potamkin to the motion to withdraw the reference in the Blumenthal Action. See Warshavsky Decl. at Exhibit 7; infra Section I. On October 14, 2011, this Court withdrew the reference in the Blumenthal Action and all joinders thereto. Ms. Chaitman represents RAR 14 Nine of the adversary proceedings proposed for consolidation have multiple defendants where certain of the other defendants are represented by other counsel or are unrepresented. See Warshavsky Decl. at Exhibit 7; infra Section I. 11

16 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 16 of 26 Entrepreneurial Fund, Ltd. and Russell Oasis in the Potamkin Action, but did not seek to join the Blumenthal Action. Rather, those entities filed a joinder to the motion to withdraw the reference currently pending in the Abel Action. That motion has not yet been heard. This means that in the Potamkin Action, two defendants have been joined to the Blumenthal Action for which the reference has been withdrawn as to certain claims and a motion to dismiss is sub judice; two defendants seek to join the Abel Action for which the motion to withdraw the reference is currently pending; and one defendant has not moved to withdraw the reference and thus remains in the Bankruptcy Court. Now, Greiff in an unrelated action seeks to consolidate his action with all of the defendants and claims in the Potamkin Action. Likewise, in Picard v. The Harnick Brothers Partnership, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL); 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR) ( Harnick Action ), another of the Cases that Ms. Chaitman seeks to consolidate with the Greiff Action, two defendants have already joined the Blumenthal Action defendants Gary Harnick and the Harnick Brothers Partnership. See Warshavsky Decl. at Exhibit 7; infra Section I. Ms. Chaitman represents seven other defendants who did not move to join the Blumenthal Action, but sought joinder to the motion to withdraw the reference in the Abel Action, which is currently pending. Thus, at present, two defendants are joined to the Blumenthal Action while seven others seek joinder to the Abel Action. Id. This confusion is repeated in Picard v. Joseph S. Popkin Revocable Trust Dated February 9, 2006, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL); 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR) and 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR) ( Popkin Trust Action ). There, two defendants represented by Seeger Weiss LLP, have been joined to the Blumenthal Action. Ms. Chaitman represents one defendant and seeks to have her joined to the Abel Action. There are also three 12

17 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 17 of 26 additional defendants, including the Estate of Joseph S. Popkin, Sharon Popkin, and Mark Popkin, who did not move to withdraw the reference, and thus remain in Bankruptcy Court. See Warshavsky Decl. at Exhibit 7; infra Section I. In Picard v. Lehrer, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL); No. 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR); and No. 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR) ( Lehrer Action ), yet another adversary proceeding proposed for consolidation with the Greiff Action, Ms. Chaitman represents only one of seventeen defendants. Seven other defendants are represented by five different law firms, and four additional defendants are unrepresented. Id. Five other defendants in the Lehrer Action, who are not represented by Ms. Chaitman, have already filed joinders to Picard v. Goldstein, Adv. Pro. No (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (BRL); 11 Civ (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR) ( Goldstein Action ), wherein a motion to withdraw the reference is pending before this Court. See Warshavsky Decl. at Exhibit 7; infra Section I. On December 6, 2011, during a conference with the Court concerning the effect of the joinders in the Blumenthal Action, this Court advised that any defendant who has not joined in any of the motions to withdraw the reference or the motions to dismiss are not impacted by any of the rulings on said motions and thus remain in the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court on all pending claims. Certainly, several of the Cases have been splintered within themselves into multiple civil actions before this Court, with several other defendants still under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. This fractionalization of the Cases is compounded by the currently pending application to join all of the Cases to the Abel Action including those with defendants previously joined to other actions in the District Court and now, a consolidation of the Cases with the Greiff Action. The Trustee has continued to work with all counsel to ensure a uniform 13

18 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 18 of 26 approach, and other than the current application, this has worked without issue. In each of these other cases, this fractionalization has been handled and resulted in minimal disruption. Ms. Chaitman s machinations would have effects beyond her clients cause confusion as to which ruling applies to which party, place actions in markedly different procedural postures together, eliminate rights and claims to the severe prejudice of the Trustee, and result in inconsistent adjudication of facts and legal issues within actions. ARGUMENT Greiff seeks to consolidate the within action with the 125 Cases, 15 which involve over 420 defendants. The Consolidation Motion relies upon Ms. Chaitman s declaration of the facts and the very broad argument that common claims and issues render consolidation appropriate. However, the facts that Ms. Chaitman does not disclose to this Court make overwhelmingly clear that while certain claims or certain facts may be common to only certain the Cases, consolidation of the Greiff Action with the multitude of Cases which the movant seeks to consolidate would be inappropriate, substantially prejudicial to the Trustee and other parties, and would result in confusion and disorder to the matters pending before this Court and the Bankruptcy Court. These reasons, which are set forth fully below, provide more than sufficient grounds for denying the Consolidation Motion. I. THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE DISPARATE CLAIMS AND ISSUES EXIST, AND THE TRUSTEE WOULD SUFFER SIGNIFICANT PREJUDICE AS A RESULT OF CONSOLIDATION Pursuant to F.R.Civ.Pr. Rule 42(a), a federal district court may consolidate civil actions [that] involv[e] a common question of law or fact. [Consolidation] should be prudently 15 Despite the repeated references in the Consolidation Motion to 124 Cases, Ms. Chaitman is actually seeking to consolidate 125 Cases (including the Abel Action) with the Greiff Action. 14

19 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 19 of 26 employed as a valuable and important tool of judicial administration, invoked to expedite trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion. Devlin v. Transportation Communs. Int l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal citations and quotations omitted). In considering whether consolidation is appropriate the court must weigh: whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion [are] overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses, and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives. Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2d Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). The appropriateness of consolidating actions depends on whether the interest of judicial economy outweighs the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice that may result from consolidation. Bank of Montreal v. Eagle Assocs., 117 F.R.D. 530, 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); see Caronia v. Hustedt Chevrolet, Nos , , , and , 2009 WL , at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2009) (internal quotations omitted) (consolidation is generally appropriate, [s]o long as any confusion or prejudice does not outweigh efficiency concerns. ). A. Disparate Claims and Issues Exist It is evident that there are certain issues of law and fact common to the Cases at issue. In these Cases, the Trustee seeks to avoid and recover certain preferential transfers and/or fraudulent conveyances. However, the facts are not as clear cut as Ms. Chaitman makes them out to be. The underlying adversary proceedings in the Cases at issue are not one defendant adversary proceedings where one attorney represents the single defendant. In reality, nine of the Cases involve multiple defendants who are represented by counsel other than Ms. Chaitman or are unrepresented; four of the Cases have defendants that have already been joined or seek to be joined to another matter; and there are at least thirty-eight unrepresented and other defendants 15

20 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 20 of 26 who are still within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. The multiple parties, multiple representations and multiple procedural postures render consolidation unwieldy and inappropriate. These multiple factors are exemplified in the Potamkin, Harnick, Popkin Trust and Lehrer Actions, which strongly compel against consolidation with the Greiff Action. Within each action, several defendants have been joined to the Blumenthal Action, some defendants have been joined to the Goldstein Action, several defendants are seeking joinder to the Abel Action and several defendants still remain within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. Wholesale consolidation now as opposed to continuing along the orderly path already in place would lead to the complex questions of which party is affected by which ruling, how the potential for inconsistent rulings would be treated among the parties and how the adversary proceedings are to be tried with parties in different procedural and substantive postures. Moreover, several of the Cases proposed for consolidation involve different legal issues. As set forth above, twenty-two of the Cases proposed for consolidation raise a legal issue that was not addressed in the Greiff Action; two of the Cases involve statutory insiders, which are subject to different look back periods under certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Code; 16 and two of the Cases involve defendants that reached a settlement in principle with the Trustee. See Warshavsky Decl. at Exhibit 7. These issues, pertinent to the respective Cases, should not be consolidated to an action where the issues are wholly irrelevant. Nor should they be consolidated to an action where the Trustee has not had the opportunity to exercise his right to amend the complaints, and to brief and argue the substantive merits of the new claims. 16 For example, Bankruptcy Code section 547 provides that preferential transfers to insiders may be avoided during the one year period prior to the filing date. See 11 U.S.C. 547(b)(4)(B). 16

21 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 21 of 26 B. Substantial Prejudice Tellingly, Ms. Chaitman does not even touch upon the fact that the Trustee would be substantially prejudiced by the consolidation of cases at significantly different procedural postures and with substantively different claims. While Rule 42(a) is a vehicle to encourage judicial efficiency, the Rule should be applied to ensure judicial fairness above all else. Considerations of convenience and economy must yield to a paramount concern for a fair and impartial trial. Johnson, 899 F.2d at When substantial prejudice to a party opposing consolidation is demonstrated, the motion to consolidate must be denied. Rio Energy Intern., Inc. v. Hilton Oil Transport, 776 F.Supp. 120, 122 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). At present in the Greiff Action, the reference to the Bankruptcy Court has been withdrawn as to certain issues and there is currently pending a motion to dismiss based on those issues, which has been fully briefed and argued. The majority of the Cases that Ms. Chaitman seeks to consolidate to the Greiff Action are not at the same procedural posture. The reference has not been withdrawn in 122 of the Cases, and likewise no motions to dismiss or joinders to any pending motion to dismiss have been filed in any of the foregoing the Cases. If the Cases were consolidated with the Greiff Action, the Trustee would undoubtedly be prejudiced by the inability, in each of the respective Cases, to: (1) file an Amended Complaint as of right, as expressly provided by Rule 15; (2) argue and create a record that withdrawal of the reference is inappropriate; and (3) argue and create a record as to each claim or defense on a motion to dismiss, to the extent new or different grounds or facts are raised. For instance, the Trustee continues to believe that the invocation of Bankruptcy Code section 546(e) is not a proper basis for mandatory withdrawal of the reference and continues to believe that the same section of the Bankruptcy Code is inapplicable here, notwithstanding this Court s ruling in Picard v. Katz, No. 17

22 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 22 of Civ. 3605, 2011 WL at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2011). 17 The Trustee is entitled to each of these rights in each of the respective Cases and should not be precluded from exercising those rights for the sake of illusory efficiency. Notably, prejudice also befalls other defendants in the Cases. As the Court has made clear, defendants who have not joined in the motions to withdraw and/or the motions to dismiss are not subject to any of the Court s rulings on the motions. As such, by consolidation with the Greiff Action, where a ruling on the motion to dismiss is shortly anticipated, those defendants would be subject to having their claims in a different procedural and substantive posture as the joined defendants. In other words, all claims whether withdrawn or dismissed would still remain pending against the other defendants and must be litigated accordingly. Interestingly, the other defendants have not moved for joinder or consolidation with the Greiff Action, 18 have no interest in the Greiff Action and were certainly not provided with notice by Ms. Chaitman to nevertheless consolidate their claims with the Greiff Action. 19 It is clear that the current procedural posture of the Greiff Action and the distinct substantive issues make consolidation of the Cases with the Greiff Action inappropriate. The 17 Notwithstanding this Court s rulings to the contrary, no other court has found that section 546(e) provides a basis for mandatory withdrawal of the reference under 28 U.S.C. 157(d). Walker, Truesdel, Roth & Assocs., et al. v. The Blackstone Group, L.P., et al. (In re Extended Stay, Inc.), 2011 WL , at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2011). Likewise, courts have held that a defense under section 546(e) is inappropriate in this context. 18 Notably, none of the other defendants represented by Ms. Chaitman have moved for consolidation. 19 Although Ms. Chaitman is putatively moving on behalf of Greiff, if the Court were inclined to permit the Trustee to preserve his right to amend his complaints against the other defendants in the event of any consolidation of the Cases, thereby delaying any opinion in the Greiff Action, the proposed consolidation would prejudice Greiff, the moving party herein. 18

23 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 23 of 26 Trustee is entitled to fully pursue his claims and to defend against any affirmative defenses. Elimination of the right to do so would result in severe prejudice to the Trustee. While consolidation is available to encourage judicial efficiency, it should not be granted when it undoubtedly would result is substantial delay, confusion and prejudice. Argo Comm. Corp. v. Centel Corp., et al., 91 Civ. 7226, 1992 WL 75144, *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 1992) (disparity in the procedural stages of litigation and distinct substantive issues between two cases precludes consolidation). C. The Trustee Did Not Consent To Consolidation Of The Cases. Ms. Chaitman makes much of the Trustee s statements with respect to the fully briefed issues in the Greiff Action. Specifically, during the November 10, 2011 hearing in the Greiff Action, counsel for the Trustee had the following colloquy with the Court: THE COURT: Let me interrupt for a minute here. Your adversary in a way has said that because she s now filed the motions to withdraw, that she, in effect, is suggesting we should treat this as argument for all those cases. Is that agreeable to you? MR. SHEEHAN: Yes. That s fine, your Honor. Because I believe that the facts would be the same for each. THE COURT: Very good. See Transcript of Oral Argument at 18, Picard v. Greiff, 11 Civ (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2011); Warshavsky Decl. at Exhibit 1. Ms. Chaitman believes that Mr. Sheehan s statement should be read as the Trustee agreeing to waive the right to amend complaints as of right, waive the right to object to withdrawal of the reference without the opportunity for briefing or argument, and waiver of the right to brief or argue new issues not previously contained, briefed and/or argued in the Greiff 19

24 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 24 of 26 Action. Mr. Sheehan s statement speaks for itself and certainly with full disclosure of facts not presented to the Court does not support Ms. Chaitman s conclusory supposition. Procedurally, as noted above, at the time of oral argument, Ms. Chaitman incorrectly stated that she had filed 121 motions to withdraw the reference to the Greiff Action. See Exhibit 1 to Warshavsky Decl. The truth is that Ms. Chaitman actually filed 124 joinders to the Abel Action. No motions for joinder had been filed to the motion to withdraw the reference in the Greiff Action. No motions for joinder had been filed to the motion to dismiss in the Greiff Action. As such, any arguments in the Greiff Action could not and should not be applicable to any of the Cases. Substantively, if the joinders to the motion to withdraw the reference and motion to dismiss had been properly filed in the Greiff Action, and the Trustee decided against exercising his right to amend, then the arguments in Greiff that had been fully briefed and argued would apply to the Cases to the extent they are relevant. To the extent the Cases raised new arguments and issues, the Trustee did not waive his right to fully brief and argue those new issues when they are ripe, i.e., after an amended complaint is filed, after a reference is properly withdrawn and after a motion to dismiss is properly briefed, argued and presented to the Court. However, as the Court is aware, the Trustee has made the same argument with respect to his various positions. To the extent that the Court withdraws the reference with respect to all of Ms. Chaitman s clients, on all of the same issues, and those clients merely repeat the same arguments and it is anticipated that they would the Trustee absolutely would rest by his existing arguments as he has done in the past. The Trustee has made every effort to cooperate with the parties and to advance judicial efficiency. The Trustee has agreed to motions for joinder and/or consolidation where the parties 20

25 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 25 of 26 are in the same procedural posture, where there are common issues of law and fact, and where substantive claims have been properly presented to the Court. 20 The Trustee does not alter his efforts with respect to the Greiff Action. However, the Trustee has not and will not consent to joinder and/or consolidation of actions that have not been properly presented to the Court or where such joinder and/or consolidation is prejudicial to the rights of the Trustee to fully exercise his rights and pursue his claims. D. The Merits Of Any Anticipated Amended Complaint Are Irrelevant To The Issue Of Consolidation. In what can only be deemed as a last ditch effort, Ms. Chaitman injects a discussion of the substantive merits on the claims that the Trustee may pursue in an amended complaint. Such consideration of the merits of the claims is wholly irrelevant to the Trustee s right under Rule 15 to file amended complaints in the respective Cases. In re Prudential Sec. Inc. Ltd. P ships. Litig., 158 F.R.D. 562, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (rejecting defendants challenge to plaintiffs right to amend their complaints as of right in a consolidated proceeding and noting that [the] Court would have no opportunity to consider the substance of these amendments until a proper motion challenging the allegations in the amended complaint were brought. ); 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2382 (3d ed. 2011) ( Consolidation also would not be proper if a party thereby seeks to circumvent the rules regarding amendment as of right in Rule 15(a). ). Ms. Chaitman s argument should not be countenanced. 20 See, e.g., Order Consolidating The Cases, Picard v. Hein, 11 Civ (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2011) (ECF No. 15). 21

26 Case 1:11-cv JSR Document 48 Filed 12/30/11 Page 26 of 26 CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the Trustee respectfully requests that Defendant Greiff s Consolidation Motion be denied in its entirety. Date: December 30, 2011 New York, New York By: /s/oren J. Warshavsky BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) David J. Sheehan dsheehan@bakerlaw.com Oren J. Warshavsky owarshavsky@bakerlaw.com Lan Hoang lhoang@bakerlaw.com Nicholas J. Cremona ncremona@bakerlaw.com Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff 22

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 13 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 16

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 13 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 16 Case 1:12-cv-05717-JSR Document 13 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT

More information

TRUSTEE S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO STAY APPEAL OF ORDER DENYING REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE

TRUSTEE S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO STAY APPEAL OF ORDER DENYING REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE Case 1:13-cv-00935-JGK Document 10 Filed 04/24/13 Page 1 of 9 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 David J. Sheehan Email:

More information

Case , Document 48-1, 07/16/2015, , Page1 of 1

Case , Document 48-1, 07/16/2015, , Page1 of 1 Case 15-1886, Document 48-1, 07/16/2015, 1555504, Page1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

More information

smb Doc 234 Filed 04/06/16 Entered 04/06/16 12:55:19 Main Document Pg 1 of 9

smb Doc 234 Filed 04/06/16 Entered 04/06/16 12:55:19 Main Document Pg 1 of 9 Pg 1 of 9 Baker & Hostetler LLP Hearing Date: April 27, 2016 45 Rockefeller Plaza Time: 10:00a.m. New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Objection Deadline: April 20, 2016 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201

More information

Case , Document 34-1, 03/18/2016, , Page1 of 1

Case , Document 34-1, 03/18/2016, , Page1 of 1 Case 16-413, Document 34-1, 03/18/2016, 1731407, Page1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

More information

brl Doc 111 Filed 12/17/13 Entered 12/17/13 15:22:56 Main Document Pg 1 of 12

brl Doc 111 Filed 12/17/13 Entered 12/17/13 15:22:56 Main Document Pg 1 of 12 Pg 1 of 12 WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP 156 West 56 th Street Presentment Date: December 30, 2013 New York, New York 10019 Time: 12:00 p.m. Telephone: (212) 237-1000 Facsimile: (212) 262-1215 Objections

More information

smb Doc 92-1 Filed 10/23/15 Entered 10/23/15 10:00:20 Notice of Motion Pg 1 of 3

smb Doc 92-1 Filed 10/23/15 Entered 10/23/15 10:00:20 Notice of Motion Pg 1 of 3 09-01365-smb Doc 92-1 Filed 10/23/15 Entered 10/23/15 10:00:20 Notice of Motion Pg 1 of 3 Baker & Hostetler LLP Hearing Date: November 18, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. 45 Rockefeller Plaza Objection Due: November

More information

smb Doc 373 Filed 05/10/17 Entered 05/10/17 20:38:30 Main Document Pg 1 of 11

smb Doc 373 Filed 05/10/17 Entered 05/10/17 20:38:30 Main Document Pg 1 of 11 Pg 1 of 11 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated

More information

Case 1:15-mc JGK Document 26 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:15-mc JGK Document 26 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 10 Case 1:15-mc-00056-JGK Document 26 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 10 United States District Court Southern District of New York SUSANNE STONE MARSHALL, ET AL., Petitioners, -against- BERNARD L. MADOFF, ET AL.,

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Adv. Pro. No (BRL) SIPA Liquidation

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Adv. Pro. No (BRL) SIPA Liquidation BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Presentment Date: June 29, 2011 45 Rockefeller Plaza Time: 12:00 p.m. New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Objections Due: June 29, 2011 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Time: 11:00

More information

TRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY ROBERT BLECKER

TRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY ROBERT BLECKER Pg 1 of 12 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated

More information

smb Doc 272 Filed 08/10/15 Entered 08/10/15 10:53:16 Main Document Pg 1 of 19

smb Doc 272 Filed 08/10/15 Entered 08/10/15 10:53:16 Main Document Pg 1 of 19 Pg 1 of 19 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Debtor. IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment

More information

brl Doc 111 Filed 08/26/13 Entered 08/26/13 14:16:36 Main Document Pg 1 of 12

brl Doc 111 Filed 08/26/13 Entered 08/26/13 14:16:36 Main Document Pg 1 of 12 ----------------------- --- ------- 10-05342-brl Doc 111 Filed 08/26/13 Entered 08/26/13 14:16:36 Main Document Pg 1 of 12 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone:

More information

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 16 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 16 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:12-cv-02318-JSR Document 16 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT

More information

Case 1:18-cv PAE Document 20-1 Filed 12/14/18 Page 1 of 13

Case 1:18-cv PAE Document 20-1 Filed 12/14/18 Page 1 of 13 Case 1:18-cv-07449-PAE Document 20-1 Filed 12/14/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT

More information

brl Doc 76 Filed 03/28/12 Entered 03/28/12 10:50:37 Main Document Pg 1 of 10. Plaintiff-Applicant, Adv. Pro. No.

brl Doc 76 Filed 03/28/12 Entered 03/28/12 10:50:37 Main Document Pg 1 of 10. Plaintiff-Applicant, Adv. Pro. No. Pg 1 of 10 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Applicant, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (BRL) BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES

More information

smb Doc Filed 05/19/17 Entered 05/19/17 16:38:12 Main Document Pg 1 of 4

smb Doc Filed 05/19/17 Entered 05/19/17 16:38:12 Main Document Pg 1 of 4 08-01789-smb Doc 16034 Filed 05/19/17 Entered 05/19/17 16:38:12 Main Document Pg 1 of 4 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Applicant,

More information

smb Doc 135 Filed 10/06/17 Entered 10/06/17 16:36:33 Main Document Pg 1 of 13

smb Doc 135 Filed 10/06/17 Entered 10/06/17 16:36:33 Main Document Pg 1 of 13 Pg 1 of 13 ALLEN & OVERY LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 610-6300 Facsimile: (212) 610-6399 Michael S. Feldberg Attorneys for Defendant ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (presently

More information

smb Doc Filed 10/28/16 Entered 10/28/16 16:40:29 Main Document Pg 1 of 20

smb Doc Filed 10/28/16 Entered 10/28/16 16:40:29 Main Document Pg 1 of 20 Pg 1 of 20 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated

More information

smb Doc Filed 12/09/16 Entered 12/09/16 13:53:27 Main Document Pg 1 of 14

smb Doc Filed 12/09/16 Entered 12/09/16 13:53:27 Main Document Pg 1 of 14 Pg 1 of 14 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated

More information

smb Doc Filed 09/19/18 Entered 09/19/18 20:14:12 Main Document Pg 1 of 5

smb Doc Filed 09/19/18 Entered 09/19/18 20:14:12 Main Document Pg 1 of 5 Pg 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Applicant, v. BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789

More information

Case 1:12-cv VM Document 30 Filed 02/06/13 Page 1 of 12 LJSDC NY: Plaintiff, Defendant. Debtor. VICTOR MARRERO, united States District Judge.

Case 1:12-cv VM Document 30 Filed 02/06/13 Page 1 of 12 LJSDC NY: Plaintiff, Defendant. Debtor. VICTOR MARRERO, united States District Judge. Case 1:12-cv-09408-VM Document 30 Filed 02/06/13 Page 1 of 12 LJSDC NY:, DOCUl\lENT. ; ELECTRONICA[;"LY.Ft~D UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----- ----- --------------- -------X

More information

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 22 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of x

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 22 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of x Case 1:12-cv-05597-JSR Document 22 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --- ------- --X SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v- BERNARD

More information

Case 1:15-cv JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:15-cv JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14 Case 1:15-cv-04685-JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : IN RE:

More information

smb Doc Filed 05/19/17 Entered 05/19/17 16:34:28 Main Document Pg 1 of 5

smb Doc Filed 05/19/17 Entered 05/19/17 16:34:28 Main Document Pg 1 of 5 08-01789-smb Doc 16033 Filed 05/19/17 Entered 05/19/17 16:34:28 Main Document Pg 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Applicant,

More information

The Avoidance Procedures

The Avoidance Procedures The Avoidance Procedures 1. Notice of Applicability: A. The Avoidance Procedures apply only to Avoidance Actions commenced by the Trustee after the approval of these Avoidance Procedures in which (a) the

More information

David J. Sheehan Marc. E. Hirschfield Karin S. Jenson

David J. Sheehan Marc. E. Hirschfield Karin S. Jenson Baker & Hostetler LLP Hearing Date: April 3, 2012 45 Rockefeller Plaza Time: 10:00 a.m. New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Objection Deadline: March 27, 2012 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Time: 4:00

More information

Pg 1 of 25 STIPULATIONS REGARDING DESIGNATED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

Pg 1 of 25 STIPULATIONS REGARDING DESIGNATED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS 08-01789-smb Case 1:18-cv-07449-PAE Doc 17136 Filed 01/18/18 Document Entered 20-4 Filed 01/18/18 12/14/18 07:37:19 Page 1 Main of 25Document Pg 1 of 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT

More information

Case 1:12-mc JSR Document 155 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:12-mc JSR Document 155 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 10 Case 1:12-mc-00115-JSR Document 155 Filed 06/01/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT

More information

smb Doc 21 Filed 01/12/15 Entered 01/12/15 18:27:33 Main Document Pg 1 of 22

smb Doc 21 Filed 01/12/15 Entered 01/12/15 18:27:33 Main Document Pg 1 of 22 Pg 1 of 22 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 David J. Sheehan Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively

More information

smb Doc Filed 10/28/16 Entered 10/28/16 16:34:34 Main Document Pg 1 of 19

smb Doc Filed 10/28/16 Entered 10/28/16 16:34:34 Main Document Pg 1 of 19 Pg 1 of 19 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA

More information

Irving H. Picard, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the court-appointed trustee ( SIPA Trustee ) for the liquidation of Bernard

Irving H. Picard, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the court-appointed trustee ( SIPA Trustee ) for the liquidation of Bernard UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re BLM AIR CHARTER LLC, Debtor. Chapter 11 Case No. 09-16757 AFFIDAVIT OF IRVING H. PICARD PURSUANT TO RULE 1007-2 OF THE LOCAL BANKRUPTCY

More information

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 22 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 15

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 22 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 15 Case 1:12-cv-06733-JSR Document 22 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel Case 1:11-cv-02971-WYD-KMT Document 125 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 11-cv-02971-WYD-KMT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley

More information

mg Doc 5792 Filed 11/15/13 Entered 11/15/13 18:14:57 Main Document Pg 1 of 5

mg Doc 5792 Filed 11/15/13 Entered 11/15/13 18:14:57 Main Document Pg 1 of 5 Pg 1 of 5 Hearing Date and Time: November 19, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT & MOSLE LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178-0061 Telephone: (212 696-6000

More information

Case 1:10-cv NMG Document 224 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts

Case 1:10-cv NMG Document 224 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 224 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 9 United States District Court District of Massachusetts MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SANDOZ INC., Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS

More information

smb Doc 117 Filed 09/28/17 Entered 09/28/17 17:00:54 Main Document Pg 1 of 3

smb Doc 117 Filed 09/28/17 Entered 09/28/17 17:00:54 Main Document Pg 1 of 3 10-04337-smb Doc 117 Filed 09/28/17 Entered 09/28/17 17:00:54 Main Document Pg 1 of 3 Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP 156 West 56th Street New York, New York 10019 Tel: (212) 237-1000 Howard L. Simon

More information

smb Doc 41 Filed 02/10/16 Entered 02/10/16 11:00:05 Main Document Pg 1 of 13

smb Doc 41 Filed 02/10/16 Entered 02/10/16 11:00:05 Main Document Pg 1 of 13 Pg 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Defendant. In re: BERNARD

More information

Case 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817

Case 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817 Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

smb Doc Filed 07/19/17 Entered 07/19/17 15:42:49 Main Document Pg 1 of 5

smb Doc Filed 07/19/17 Entered 07/19/17 15:42:49 Main Document Pg 1 of 5 Pg 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Adv. Pro. No. 08-1789 (SMB)

More information

smb Doc Filed 03/29/19 Entered 03/29/19 11:06:14 Main Document Pg 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

smb Doc Filed 03/29/19 Entered 03/29/19 11:06:14 Main Document Pg 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Pg 1 of 5 Josephine Wang General Counsel SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION 1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-371-8300 E-mail: jwang@sipc.org UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY

More information

Case 1:11-cv AT Document 28 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 31 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF TRUSTEE S MOTION TO INTERVENE

Case 1:11-cv AT Document 28 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 31 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF TRUSTEE S MOTION TO INTERVENE Case 1:11-cv-05905-AT Document 28 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: FAIRFIELD SENTRY LIMITED, et al., 11 CIV. 5905 (AT) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN

More information

brl Doc 5244 Filed 02/28/13 Entered 02/28/13 11:12:50 Main Document Pg 1 of 17

brl Doc 5244 Filed 02/28/13 Entered 02/28/13 11:12:50 Main Document Pg 1 of 17 Pg 1 of 17 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (BRL) SIPA Liquidation (Substantively Consolidated)

More information

Case 1:11-mc RPP Document 18 Filed 12/06/11 Page 1 of 17

Case 1:11-mc RPP Document 18 Filed 12/06/11 Page 1 of 17 Case 1:11-mc-00285-RPP Document 18 Filed 12/06/11 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X SECURITIES INVESTOR

More information

Case MFW Doc 275 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Chapter 11.

Case MFW Doc 275 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Chapter 11. Case 18-10601-MFW Doc 275 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY HOLDINGS LLC, et al., 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No.

More information

smb Doc 235 Filed 04/18/16 Entered 04/18/16 18:00:18 Main Document Pg 1 of 3

smb Doc 235 Filed 04/18/16 Entered 04/18/16 18:00:18 Main Document Pg 1 of 3 10-05311-smb Doc 235 Filed 04/18/16 Entered 04/18/16 18:00:18 Main Document Pg 1 of 3 April 18, 2016 Karin S. Jenson direct dial: 212.589.4266 kjenson@bakerlaw.com VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS, ECF AND ELECTRONIC

More information

mg Doc 28 Filed 06/20/14 Entered 06/20/14 17:18:03 Main Document Pg 1 of 10

mg Doc 28 Filed 06/20/14 Entered 06/20/14 17:18:03 Main Document Pg 1 of 10 Pg 1 of 10 Hearing Date and Time: July 23, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) Response Date and Time: July 4, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN

More information

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 43 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 43 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:12-cv-06733-JSR Document 43 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 11 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Attorneys for Irving H.

More information

jmp Doc 1530 Filed 12/13/11 Entered 12/13/11 10:43:46 Main Document Pg 1 of 12

jmp Doc 1530 Filed 12/13/11 Entered 12/13/11 10:43:46 Main Document Pg 1 of 12 Pg 1 of 12 Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC 80 Route 4 East, Suite 290 Paramus, NJ 07652 Telephone: (201) 845-1000 Facsimile: (201) 845-9112 Michael J. Connolly, Esq. mconnolly@formanlaw.com Andrew Karas,

More information

Case , Document 912, 03/29/2018, , Page1 of 6

Case , Document 912, 03/29/2018, , Page1 of 6 Case 17-2992, Document 912, 03/29/2018, 2267585, Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

More information

mg Doc 14 Filed 06/29/18 Entered 06/29/18 13:24:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 13

mg Doc 14 Filed 06/29/18 Entered 06/29/18 13:24:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 13 Pg 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: ADVANCE WATCH COMPANY, LTD., et al., Debtor. PETER KRAVITZ, as Creditor Trustee of the Creditor Trust of Advance Watch Company,

More information

mg Doc 6 Filed 02/16/12 Entered 02/16/12 11:22:25 Main Document Pg 1 of 16

mg Doc 6 Filed 02/16/12 Entered 02/16/12 11:22:25 Main Document Pg 1 of 16 Pg 1 of 16 CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP Counsel for the Petitioners 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112 (212) 408-5100 Howard Seife, Esq. Andrew Rosenblatt, Esq. Francisco Vazquez, Esq. UNITED STATES

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND In re: Jeffrey V. Howes Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE JEFFREY V. HOWES Civil Action No. ELH-16-00840 MEMORANDUM On March 21, 2016, Jeffrey V. Howes, who

More information

scc Doc 51 Filed 07/16/15 Entered 07/16/15 15:54:38 Main Document Pg 1 of 23

scc Doc 51 Filed 07/16/15 Entered 07/16/15 15:54:38 Main Document Pg 1 of 23 Pg 1 of 23 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) SABINE OIL & GAS CORPORATION, et al., 1 ) Case No. 15-11835 (SCC) ) Debtors. ) (Joint Administration Requested)

More information

TRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

TRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Pg 1 of 17 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 David J. Sheehan dsheehan@bakerlaw.com Timothy S. Pfeifer tpfeifer@bakerlaw.com

More information

Case DHS Doc 13-4 Filed 01/30/13 Entered 01/30/13 15:19:17 Desc Memorandum of Law Page 1 of 13

Case DHS Doc 13-4 Filed 01/30/13 Entered 01/30/13 15:19:17 Desc Memorandum of Law Page 1 of 13 Memorandum of Law Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY In Re: WENDY LUBETSKY, Chapter 7 Debtor. WENDY LUBETSKY, v. Plaintiff, Case No.: 12 30829 (DHS) Adv. No.: 12

More information

smb Doc 100 Filed 10/05/17 Entered 10/05/17 15:40:09 Main Document Pg 1 of 29 Opposition Due: September 5, 2017 Replies Due: October 5, 2017

smb Doc 100 Filed 10/05/17 Entered 10/05/17 15:40:09 Main Document Pg 1 of 29 Opposition Due: September 5, 2017 Replies Due: October 5, 2017 10-04488-smb Doc 100 Filed 10/05/17 Entered 10/05/17 15:40:09 Main Document Pg 1 of 29 Opposition Due: September 5, 2017 Replies Due: October 5, 2017 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

More information

Case Doc 72 Filed 12/03/18 Entered 12/03/18 16:29:46 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 12

Case Doc 72 Filed 12/03/18 Entered 12/03/18 16:29:46 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 12 Document Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division In re: Sharon Road Properties, LLC, CASE NO. 17-30363 CHAPTER 7 DEBTOR. MOTION

More information

brl Doc 259 Filed 01/26/12 Entered 01/26/12 14:33:49 Main Document Pg 1 of 9

brl Doc 259 Filed 01/26/12 Entered 01/26/12 14:33:49 Main Document Pg 1 of 9 Pg 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Debtor. ------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

MEMORANDUM. ("Pickard"), defendants in the above-captioned adversary proceeding ("Defendants"), move this

MEMORANDUM. (Pickard), defendants in the above-captioned adversary proceeding (Defendants), move this JLL Consultants, Inc. v. AGFeed USA, LLC et al Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE INRE: AGFEED USA, LLC, et al., Debtors. JLL CONSULTANTS, INC. not individually but

More information

smb Doc Filed 11/23/15 Entered 11/23/15 18:21:10 Main Document Pg 1 of 5

smb Doc Filed 11/23/15 Entered 11/23/15 18:21:10 Main Document Pg 1 of 5 Pg 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Applicant, v. BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Adv. Pro. No. 08-1789

More information

Case 3:16-cv CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:16-cv CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9 Case 3:16-cv-00350-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION NYKOLAS ALFORD and STEPHEN THOMAS; and ACLU

More information

) ) ORDER APPROVING RMBS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND INCLUDING CERTAIN PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

) ) ORDER APPROVING RMBS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND INCLUDING CERTAIN PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- x ) In re ) ) Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al., ) ) Debtors. ) ) -----------------------------------------------------------

More information

Case 2:14-cv SPL Document 25 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:14-cv SPL Document 25 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case :-cv-000-spl Document Filed 0// Page of William R. Mettler, Esq. S. Price Road Chandler, Arizona Arizona State Bar No. 00 (0 0-0 wrmettler@wrmettlerlaw.com Attorney for Defendant Zenith Financial

More information

Case 1:17-cv GBD Document 14 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 23

Case 1:17-cv GBD Document 14 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 23 Case 1:17-cv-05163-GBD Document 14 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Applicant, BERNARD L.

More information

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF TRUSTEE S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS AND STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF TRUSTEE S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS AND STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Pg 1 of 25 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 David J. Sheehan Marc E. Hirschfield Tracy Cole M. Elizabeth Howe Attorneys

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA JOINTLY ADMINISTERED UNDER CASE NO Polaroid Consumer Electronics, LLC;

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA JOINTLY ADMINISTERED UNDER CASE NO Polaroid Consumer Electronics, LLC; UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Polaroid Corporation, et al., Debtors. (includes: Polaroid Holding Company; Polaroid Consumer Electronics, LLC; Polaroid Capital, LLC; Polaroid

More information

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding

More information

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901 Case: 1:13-cv-01569 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAUL DUFFY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case

More information

TRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE

TRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE Case 1:11-cv-07680-JSR Document 9 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Applicant, BERNARD L. MADOFF

More information

Case 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION In re: ) Case No. 11-15719 ) CARDINAL FASTENER & SPECIALTY ) Chapter 7 CO., INC., ) ) Chief Judge Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren Debtor.

More information

Case 1:10-cv AKH Document 68 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 12. Plaintiff, Defendant.

Case 1:10-cv AKH Document 68 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 12. Plaintiff, Defendant. Case 1:10-cv-03864-AKH Document 68 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARY K. JONES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ECF

More information

smb Doc 261 Filed 05/20/16 Entered 05/20/16 16:49:42 Main Document Pg 1 of 4

smb Doc 261 Filed 05/20/16 Entered 05/20/16 16:49:42 Main Document Pg 1 of 4 09-01161-smb Doc 261 Filed 05/20/16 Entered 05/20/16 16:49:42 Main Document Pg 1 of 4 09-01161-smb Doc 261 Filed 05/20/16 Entered 05/20/16 16:49:42 Main Document Pg 2 of 4 09-01161-smb Doc 261 Filed 05/20/16

More information

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Case 1:17-cv-03000-SGB Document 106 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 8 In the United States Court of Federal Claims Filed: December 8, 2017 IN RE ADDICKS AND BARKER (TEXAS) FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS Master Docket

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Wenegieme v. Macco et al Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK N o 17-CV-1218 (JFB) CELESTINE WENEGIEME, Appellant, VERSUS MICHAEL J. MACCO, ET AL., MEMORANDUM AND ORDER January

More information

Case 1:13-cv KBF Document 26 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:13-cv KBF Document 26 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 9 Case 113-cv-02668-KBF Document 26 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------x ANTHONY ROSIAN, et al., Plaintiffs,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division)

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division) IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division) In re: ) ) Chapter 7 TSI HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. ) ) Case No. 17-30132 (Jointly Administered) Debtors.

More information

Case GMB Doc 498 Filed 06/14/14 Entered 06/14/14 14:39:47 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 11

Case GMB Doc 498 Filed 06/14/14 Entered 06/14/14 14:39:47 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 11 Case 13-34483-GMB Doc 498 Filed 06/14/14 Entered 06/14/14 14:39:47 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Caption in compliance with D.N.J. LBR 9004-2(c)

More information

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8 Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) - telephone

More information

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE Case 1:11-cv-06244-UA Document 2 Filed 09/07/11 Page 1 of 34 Parvin K. Aminolroaya SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street 26th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 584-0700 Fax: (212) 584-0799 Attorneys for the

More information

Case 1:16-cv GHW Document 31 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 36. Debtor. Appellants, (Lead) Appellees. BRIEF OF APPELLEE IRVING H.

Case 1:16-cv GHW Document 31 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 36. Debtor. Appellants, (Lead) Appellees. BRIEF OF APPELLEE IRVING H. Case 1:16-cv-02058-GHW Document 31 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Debtor. A & G GOLDMAN PARTNERSHIP

More information

Case 8:18-cr TDC Document 35 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 8:18-cr TDC Document 35 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 35 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal No. TDC-18-0012 MARK T. LAMBERT, Defendant.

More information

Case 3:14-cv VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 3:14-cv VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Case 3:14-cv-01714-VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 PAUL T. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT v. CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1714 (VAB) NORTH AMERICAN POWER AND GAS,

More information

LLC, was removed to this Court from state court in December (Docket No. 1). At that

LLC, was removed to this Court from state court in December (Docket No. 1). At that Leong v. The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Doc. 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X OEI HONG LEONG, Plaintiff,

More information

ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE

ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE Last Revised 12/1/2006 ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE Rules & Procedures for Arbitration RULE 1: SCOPE OF RULES A. The arbitration Rules and Procedures ( Rules ) govern binding arbitration of disputes or claims

More information

scc Doc 908 Filed 10/05/12 Entered 10/05/12 15:30:16 Main Document Pg 1 of 8

scc Doc 908 Filed 10/05/12 Entered 10/05/12 15:30:16 Main Document Pg 1 of 8 Pg 1 of 8 Post-Hearing Brief Deadline: October 5, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP Thomas Moers Mayer Adam C. Rogoff P. Bradley O Neill 1177 Avenue of the

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: GREEKTOWN HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., 1 Debtors. ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 08-53104 Chapter 11 Jointly Administered Honorable

More information

shl Doc 2384 Filed 10/23/17 Entered 10/23/17 10:34:04 Main Document Pg 1 of 8. Debtors. : : : : : : : : : Appellant, Appellee.

shl Doc 2384 Filed 10/23/17 Entered 10/23/17 10:34:04 Main Document Pg 1 of 8. Debtors. : : : : : : : : : Appellant, Appellee. 11-10372-shl Doc 2384 Filed 10/23/17 Entered 10/23/17 103404 Main Document Pg 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------

More information

Case 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10

Case 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10 Case 6:05-cv-06344-CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SCOTT E. WOODWORTH and LYNN M. WOODWORTH, v. Plaintiffs, REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

More information

shl Doc 27 Filed 03/26/12 Entered 03/26/12 12:14:21 Main Document Pg 1 of 12

shl Doc 27 Filed 03/26/12 Entered 03/26/12 12:14:21 Main Document Pg 1 of 12 12-11076-shl Doc 27 Filed 03/26/12 Entered 03/26/12 121421 Main Document Pg 1 of 12 HEARING DATE AND TIME March 29, 2012 at 1100 a.m. (Eastern Time) OBJECTION DEADLINE March 28, 2012 at 1200 p.m. (Eastern

More information

smb Doc Filed 11/15/17 Entered 11/15/17 16:16:45 Main Document Pg 1 of 101. v. (Substantively Consolidated)

smb Doc Filed 11/15/17 Entered 11/15/17 16:16:45 Main Document Pg 1 of 101. v. (Substantively Consolidated) Pg 1 of 101 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Irving H. Picard David J. Sheehan Seanna R. Brown Heather R. Wlodek Hearing

More information

Case 1:17-cv GBD Document 12 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 28

Case 1:17-cv GBD Document 12 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 28 Case 1:17-cv-05162-GBD Document 12 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Applicant, BERNARD L.

More information

Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 22 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 22 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-wha Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 0 Nicholas Ranallo, Attorney at Law #0 Fillmore Street, #0-0 San Francisco, CA () 0- Fax No.: () -0 Email: nick@ranallolawoffice.com Attorney for Defendant

More information

Case 1:09-cv RMB Document 16 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:09-cv RMB Document 16 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 1 of 11 Case 109-cv-00289-RMB Document 16 Filed 03/13/2009 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------- X REPEX VENTURES S.A., Individually and

More information

Case 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:13-cv-05101-MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TALBOT TODD SMITH CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 13-5101 UNILIFE CORPORATION,

More information

Case 1:14-cv WHP Document 103 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:14-cv WHP Document 103 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7 Case 1:14-cv-09438-WHP Document 103 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------X BENJAMIN GROSS, : Plaintiff, : -against- : GFI

More information

Case Doc 185 Filed 03/05/18 Entered 03/05/18 16:44:49 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 10

Case Doc 185 Filed 03/05/18 Entered 03/05/18 16:44:49 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 10 Document Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division) In re: ) ) Chapter 11 TSI HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. ) ) Case No. 17-30132 (Jointly

More information

Supreme Court Rules on Bankruptcy Courts Authority, Leaves Key Question Unanswered

Supreme Court Rules on Bankruptcy Courts Authority, Leaves Key Question Unanswered Westlaw Journal bankruptcy Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 11, issue 7 / july 31, 2014 Expert Analysis Supreme Court Rules on Bankruptcy Courts Authority, Leaves

More information

brl Doc 4681 Filed 02/17/12 Entered 02/17/12 16:12:51 Main Document Pg 1 of 8

brl Doc 4681 Filed 02/17/12 Entered 02/17/12 16:12:51 Main Document Pg 1 of 8 Pg 1 of 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Applicant, v. BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Adv. Pro. No. 08-1789

More information