REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FOREIGN LAW DECLARATION
|
|
- Brian Pierce
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page1 of 19 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN RE IRVING H. PICARD, TRUSTEE FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC Case No (L) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FOREIGN LAW DECLARATION
2 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page2 of 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARGUMENT... 1 I. The Unique Path of This Case Explains Why the Declaration Is Appropriately Submitted on Reply... 2 II. Appellees Set Forth No Persuasive Arguments as to Why This Court Should Not Consider the Declaration... 7 A. Movants are not trying to supplement the record on appeal... 7 B. Movants are not introducing new arguments on reply... 9 C. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 permits the filing of the Declaration CONCLUSION i
3 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page3 of 19 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Ancile Inv. Co. Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 538 F. App x 19 (2d Cir. 2013) Bayway Refining Co. v. Oxygenated Mktg. & Trading A.G., 215 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2000)... 9 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Matrix Labs., Ltd., 655 F. App x 9 (2d Cir. 2016) Eastman Kodak Co. v. STWB, Inc., 452 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006) Europema, S.A. v. Emserian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 1998) Fairfield Sentry Ltd. v. Migani, [2014] UKPC 9 (Ct. App. British Virgin Is.)... 4, 5 Grand Entm t Grp., Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 1993) Guadagni v. New York City Transit Auth., 387 F. App x 124 (2d Cir. 2010) Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2006)... 8, 9 Okoi v. El Al Israel Airlines, 378 F. App x 9 (2d Cir. 2010)... 8 Rana v. Islam, 887 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2018)... 7 Rationis Enter. Inc. of Panama v. Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co., 426 F.3d 580 (2d Cir. 2005) United States v. Litvak, 808 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2006)... 9 ii
4 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page4 of 19 Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000)... 8 Rules Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Other Authorities C.C. Bjorklund, Law of Foreign Jurisdiction, 21 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d (2010) Moore s Federal Practice (3d ed. 1999) A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. (3d ed. 2018) iii
5 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page5 of 19 Appellant-Trustee Irving H. Picard and statutory intervenor SIPC (together, Movants ) respectfully submit this reply in support of their Motion for leave to file the Declaration of Mark Phillips, QC. ECF Nos. 1093, ARGUMENT The Declaration sets forth the laws of the BVI and Cayman relevant to this appeal from the view of a practitioner in those jurisdictions. It attaches the foreign law decisions cited to in the Declaration as well as those cited to by the Cayman and BVI insolvency professionals that filed amicus briefs supporting Appellees. It does not provide new facts. Rather, the Declaration supplies additional information about the content of foreign law to assist this Court in resolving complex issues presented by this appeal. Admittedly, parties do not often file declarations of foreign law on reply in an appeal before this Court. That such an event is infrequent, however, does not mean it is unwarranted. Here, the Declaration is the natural outgrowth of how this complex, multi-party litigation developed in the courts below and before this Court. Because certain arguments were raised for the first time in opposition to the Trustee s appeal to this Court, the natural time to provide more detail about foreign law was on reply.
6 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page6 of 19 Appellees object. They engage in misdirection by claiming that Movants are attempting to supplement the record on appeal, citing to cases where parties seek to introduce documents or evidence not in the record below. Here, by contrast, Movants are putting relevant points of law before the Court. Appellees next argue that Movants have waived or forfeited their right to make legal arguments by not raising them sooner. Essentially, Appellees oppose this motion because they believe it is unfair to allow Movants to have the last word. But in all appeals appellants are expected to respond to issues raised by the opposition and amicus briefs and their reply filings constitute the last word until oral argument. That is precisely what happened here. I. The Unique Path of This Case Explains Why the Declaration Is Appropriately Submitted on Reply This appeal arrives at this Court on somewhat of an unusual path, which underscores why the submission of the Declaration is timely and proper. The Trustee filed complaints in the bankruptcy court in On Defendants- Appellees motion, the reference was withdrawn to the district court on extraterritoriality (but not comity) grounds. SPA6 7. Unsurprisingly then, in briefing before the district court, all parties focused primarily on extraterritoriality rather than comity. Without explicitly seeking a dismissal based on comity, Defendants- Appellees cited several cases that discussed comity, arguing that the Trustee s 2
7 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page7 of 19 actions interfered with Fairfield s liquidation proceedings. 1 They also submitted a judgment of the BVI court rejecting the Fairfield liquidators claims seeking rescission of redemption payments. 2 In response, the Trustee and SIPC distinguished those cases, arguing that there was no conflict requiring a comity dismissal. 3 SIPC also argued that the Trustee s recovery actions did not conflict with laws of foreign nations. 4 On reply, Defendants-Appellees argued that the Trustee s recovery actions would conflict with BVI law and that BVI law should apply to the unwinding of those transfers. 5 The district court issued its opinion, primarily focusing on extraterritoriality but also determining that comity provided an alternative basis for dismissal. SPA The district court reasoned that the Trustee s recovery actions against 1 Def. s Br. 9 11, SIPC v. BLMIS (In re Madoff Sec.), No. 12-mc-115 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2012), ECF No Subsequent citations to the district court proceeding will reference District Court Docket. 2 See Declaration of Marco E. Schnabl and Ex. C, A Appellees represent that the Schnabl Declaration submitted below is a foreign law declaration, implying that Movants should have filed a counter-declaration below, but the Schnabl Declaration is merely a carrier declaration to submit a foreign court decision. Opposition A ; Trustee Br. 15 n.16, District Court Docket, ECF No. 310; SIPC Br , District Court Docket, ECF No SIPC Br , District Court Docket, ECF No Def. s Reply Br , District Court Docket, ECF No
8 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page8 of 19 Defendants-Appellees who received transfers from feeder funds in foreign liquidation proceedings should be dismissed because those foreign jurisdictions have a greater interest in applying their own laws than does the United States. SPA221. The only foreign authority the district court relied upon statutory or otherwise was Quilvest, a decision by a BVI court of appeals. SPA220. Although Fairfield Sentry Ltd. v. Migani, [2014] UKPC 9 (Ct. App. British Virgin Is.), SPA967, was decided in April 2014, it was not mentioned in the district court s ruling dated July 6, Upon return to the bankruptcy court, Defendants-Appellees argued in their moving papers that the district court s comity reasoning should extend beyond Fairfield subsequent transferees to include any Defendant-Appellee, whether or not the transferor was in liquidation, because of the mere possibility of interference with foreign insolvency proceedings. 6 Defendants-Appellees referenced Migani in a footnote, describing it as affirming Quilvest on somewhat different grounds. 7 6 Def. s Br , SIPC v. BLMIS (In re Madoff), No (SMB) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2014), ECF No Subsequent citations to the bankruptcy court proceeding will reference Bankruptcy Court Docket. 7 Id. at 14 n.9. 4
9 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page9 of 19 In response, the Trustee again argued that there was no conflict requiring a comity dismissal and that U.S. law applied. 8 On reply before the bankruptcy court, Defendants-Appellees made broad allegations that the district court had identified a true conflict. 9 They did not argue why or how Cayman law might provide a basis for dismissal of the Harley transfers, except that Harley was in liquidation. Defendants-Appellees did not submit foreign authority to the bankruptcy court. Their reply was the first time they advanced any substantive arguments concerning Migani. Despite the focus on extraterritoriality by all parties in their briefing, the bankruptcy court flipped the primacy of the issues in its decision, determining that comity was the primary bar to the Trustee s actions, with extraterritoriality coming in second. On appeal to this Court, the Trustee argued that comity-based dismissals require a true conflict between U.S. and foreign law, and that no such showing was made below. 10 Although Appellees argue that the Trustee did not reference Migani in his opening brief, the Trustee specifically relied on the analysis of the Eastern 8 Trustee Br , Bankruptcy Court Docket, ECF No Def. s Reply Br n.26, Bankruptcy Court Docket, ECF No Trustee Br
10 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page10 of 19 Caribbean Court of Appeal of Migani, including the scope of Migani s holding, to counter the lower courts conflicts analysis. 11 The Trustee also argued that there was no conflict between U.S. and Cayman law that would suggest a comity-based dismissal of claims against Harley transferees. 12 SIPC likewise argued that the bankruptcy court did not properly analyze foreign law. 13 Appellees and their amici 14 raised new arguments in response to Movants arguments that no conflict exists between the applicable U.S. and foreign law. As is appropriate, their amici set forth their views that differed from the focus of Appellees arguments. The amici argued that allowing the Trustee s actions to go forward would affect future cross-border insolvencies and disrupt international business, 15 and addressed Cayman insolvency law that was not meaningfully briefed below. 16 These are new arguments. Movants are entitled to respond. 11 Trustee Br. 40; SPA Trustee Br SIPC Br Br. of Amici Curiae Cayman Finance, ECF No. 1024; Br. of Amici Curiae of the BVI Rest. Profs., ECF No BVI Rest. Profs. Br ; Cayman Finance Br See generally Cayman Finance Br. 6
11 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page11 of 19 Rather than leave the Court to determine foreign law on its own, Movants submitted the Declaration of a foreign law practitioner to explain the issues of foreign law raised by Appellees and amici. See C.C. Bjorklund, Law of Foreign Jurisdiction, 21 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 1, 13 n.25 (2010) (the best source of foreign law is said to be an expert who has studied the foreign law, has practiced law in the country of its origin, and can translate and interpret it in the idiom of the American attorney ). Although foreign law has been at issue in this case from the outset, Opposition 10, it was not until Appellees opposition and amici briefs that certain arguments and issues were brought to the fore. Once they were, Movants appropriately responded. Although Appellees claim that they are prejudiced by this filing, the submission of the Declaration with Movants reply briefs was nothing more than a natural outgrowth of how the issues were litigated and decided below and how the issues were developed before this Court. II. Appellees Set Forth No Persuasive Arguments as to Why This Court Should Not Consider the Declaration Appellees throw up scattered arguments against the Declaration. None of those arguments should dissuade this Court from considering it. A. Movants are not trying to supplement the record on appeal First, Appellees argue that the Trustee and SIPC are improperly trying to supplement the record on appeal in violation of Federal Rule of Appellate 7
12 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page12 of 19 Procedure 10. Opposition 4. Appellees attack a straw man. Movants have not sought to supplement the record on appeal with new facts or evidence that were not before the district court, and therefore the cases Appellees cite are inapposite. See Opposition 4 5 (citing Rana v. Islam, 887 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2018) (attempting to submit copies of phone statements, passports and correspondence); Okoi v. El Al Israel Airlines, 378 F. App x 9, 11 n.1 (2d Cir. 2010) (denying pro se appellant s attempt to submit Papers in Support of Appeal ); Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 46 (2d Cir. 2000) (denying attempt to expand record to include statistical data)). Appellees point to Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2006), to suggest that filing a foreign law declaration for the first time on appeal is improper. Opposition 4. But the holding in Huynh is not nearly as broad as Appellees suggest. In Huynh, appellee filed an uncontested foreign law declaration in the district court. Appellants waited until the appeal to file their own foreign law declaration in response. The Ninth Circuit refused to consider appellants declaration because they did not adequately develop the record below. Id. Here, Appellees did not file a foreign law declaration in either the district or the bankruptcy court, although it was their burden to establish a true conflict between U.S. and any foreign law. Instead, Appellees relied on their foreign amici 8
13 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page13 of 19 on appeal to set out the statutory insolvency law in the BVI and the Cayman Islands, and to argue that the Trustee s actions will disrupt the foreign insolvency proceedings and irrevocably harm international cooperation in cross-border insolvency proceedings. Huynh does not preclude the Trustee from replying to these foreign law arguments made for the first time on appeal with a foreign law declaration. B. Movants are not introducing new arguments on reply Appellees argue that Movants have waived or forfeited their opportunity to present new foreign law arguments. But foreign law has been at issue in this case from the outset. Opposition 10. Thus, Appellees claim of waiver with respect to foreign law issues is not credible. See United States v. Litvak, 808 F.3d 160, 175 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (rejecting government s waiver argument, which was based on a narrow view of defendant s argument, noting that defendant was not limited to the precise arguments he made before the District Court ) (citations omitted); see also 21 Moore s Federal Practice (3d ed. 1999) (waiver occurs when an argument is mentioned only in passing, such as a footnote, presented in the appendix rather than the brief, or newly raised in a reply brief). Under Appellees reasoning, an appellant could never respond to arguments raised in opposition or by amici a facetious claim this Circuit has expressly rejected. Bayway Refining Co. v. Oxygenated Mktg. & Trading A.G., 215 F.3d 9
14 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page14 of , (2d Cir. 2000) ( [R]eply papers may properly address new material issues raised in the opposition papers so as to avoid giving unfair advantage to the answering party. ) (citation omitted); Guadagni v. New York City Transit Auth., 387 F. App x 124, 125 (2d Cir. 2010) (same). Movants are responding to issues properly raised by Appellees and their amici, making the replies and Declaration merely continuations of arguments previously raised. Eastman Kodak Co. v. STWB, Inc., 452 F.3d 215, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 534 (1992) ( Once a federal claim is properly presented, a party can make any argument in support of that claim; parties are not limited to the precise arguments they made below )). C. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 permits the filing of the Declaration As noted in the Motion, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 permits parties to submit foreign law materials to appellate courts to assist the court in determining questions of law. But Courts of Appeals may invoke Rule 44.1 to consider any 10
15 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page15 of 19 relevant source, including... affidavits. Europema, S.A. v. Emserian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24, 28 n.2 (2d Cir. 1998). 17 Courts of Appeals, including this Court, have therefore accepted and considered materials like the Declaration. Ancile Inv. Co. Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 538 F. App x 19, 21 n.3 (2d Cir. 2013) (accepting foreign law materials under Rule 44.1 submitted on appeal); Grand Entm t Grp., Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 489 n.10 (3d Cir. 1993) (considering foreign law affidavits presented on appeal because court s inquiry is not limited to the evidence properly presented in proceedings in the district court ). And leading treatises endorse that practice. E.g., 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc (3d ed. 2018) (parties should be permitted to present new foreign-law materials on appeal). 17 Appellees claim that they were not provided with sufficient notice under Rule As noted by this Court, however, the function of the notice is not to spell out the precise contents of foreign law but rather to inform the court and litigants it is relevant to the lawsuit. Thus a high degree of specificity is not required. Rationis Enter. Inc. of Panama v. Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co., 426 F.3d 580, 585 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc (2d ed. 1994)); see also Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Matrix Labs., Ltd., 655 F. App x 9, 12 (2d Cir. 2016). Since Appellees concede foreign law has been at issue in this case from the outset, as is necessarily the case when international comity is at issue, Opposition 10, lack of notice is not an issue here. 11
16 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page16 of 19 CONCLUSION Movants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion and consider the Declaration. Dated: May 29, 2018 New York, New York /s/ Kevin H. Bell JOSEPHINE WANG KEVIN H. BELL NATHANAEL S. KELLEY SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION 1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington D.C (202) Attorneys for Statutory Intervenor Securities Investor Protection Corporation Respectfully submitted, /s/ David J. Sheehan DAVID J. SHEEHAN SEANNA R. BROWN TORELLO H. CALVANI CATHERINE E.WOLTERING BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York (212) Attorneys for Appellant Irving H. Picard, as Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and the Estate of Bernard L. Madoff ROY T. ENGLERT, JR. ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK, UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP 1801 K Street, NW, Suite 411L Washington, D.C (202) HOWARD L. SIMON WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP 156 West 56th Street New York, New York (212)
17 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page17 of 19 MATTHEW B. LUNN YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP Rockefeller Center 1270 Avenue of the Americas Suite 2210 New York, New York (212) Special Counsel for Trustee 13
18 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page18 of 19 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2)(C) because it contains 2447 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Rule 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Rule 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in Times New Roman 14- point font. Dated: May 29, 2018 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kevin H. Bell JOSEPHINE WANG KEVIN H. BELL NATHANAEL S. KELLEY SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION 1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington D.C (202) Attorneys for Statutory Intervenor Securities Investor Protection Corporation /s/ David J. Sheehan DAVID J. SHEEHAN SEANNA R. BROWN TORELLO H. CALVANI CATHERINE E.WOLTERING BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York (212) Attorneys for Appellant Irving H. Picard, as Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and the Estate of Bernard L. Madoff
19 Case , Document 1209, 05/29/2018, , Page19 of 19 ROY T. ENGLERT, JR. ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK, UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP 1801 K Street, NW, Suite 411L Washington, D.C (202) HOWARD L. SIMON WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP 156 West 56th Street New York, New York (212) MATTHEW B. LUNN YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP Rockefeller Center 1270 Avenue of the Americas Suite 2210 New York, New York (212) Special Counsel for Trustee
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 informationCase , 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 informationsmb 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 informationTRUSTEE 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 informationCase , 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 informationsmb 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 informationsmb 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 informationsmb 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 informationsmb 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 informationbrl 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 informationTRUSTEE 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 informationsmb 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 informationCase 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 informationCase 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 informationCase 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 informationCase 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 informationsmb 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 informationsmb 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 informationCase 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 informationsmb 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 informationsmb 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 informationPg 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 informationsmb 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 informationbrl 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 informationCase 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 informationIrving 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 informationsmb 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 informationsmb 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 informationsmb 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 informationUNITED 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 informationUnited States Court of Appeals
Case: -000 Document: - Page: 0//0 0 000 Krys v. Farnum Place, LLC 0 0 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM, 0 ARGUED: MAY, 0 DECIDED: SEPTEMBER, 0 No. 000 IN RE: FAIRFIELD
More informationsmb Doc 115 Filed 08/29/17 Entered 08/29/17 15:12:41 Main Document Pg 1 of 13
10-04337-smb Doc 115 Filed 08/29/17 Entered 08/29/17 15:12:41 Main Document Pg 1 of 13 Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP Hearing Date: October 3, 2017 at 10 a.m. 156 West 56 th Street Objection Deadline:
More informationCase 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 informationCase 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 informationbrl 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 informationbrl 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 informationsmb 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 informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, CHARLES D.
Appellate Case: 17-4059 Document: 01019889341 01019889684 Date Filed: 10/23/2017 Page: 1 No. 17-4059 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationDavid 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 informationsmb 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 informationCase 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 informationTRUSTEE 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 informationsmb 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 informationCase 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 informationsmb 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 informationCase 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 informationsmb 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 informationCase 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 informationsmb 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 informationIn re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.: Second Circuit Provides Guidance to COMI Determinations in Chapter 15 Cases
BNA s Bankruptcy Law Reporter Reproduced with permission from BNA s Bankruptcy Law Reporter, 25 BBLR 1166, 08/22/2013. Copyright 姝 2013 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case 15-1133, Document 158-2, 02/21/2017, 1972890, Page1 of 17 Docket Nos. 15-1133-cv(L), 15-1146-cv(CON) United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit CBF Indústria de Gusa S/A, Da Terra Siderúrgica
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ) INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE ) PROJECT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) v. ) No. 17-1351 ) DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., ) ) Defendants-Appellants.
More informationApril 17, COMI: What Is It And Why Does It Matter?
April 17, 2013 The Second Circuit Rules that the Filing of a Chapter 15 Petition is the Relevant Period for Determining a Foreign Debtor s Center of Main Interests (or COMI ) and that COMI Factors Include
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. DAVID JACOBS; GARY HINDES, Appellants,
Case: 17-3794 Document: 003112873294 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2018 No. 17-3794 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT DAVID JACOBS; GARY HINDES, Appellants, v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1679553 Filed: 06/14/2017 Page 1 of 14 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, EARTHWORKS, ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600435 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 2016 No. 15-1363 (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-11051 Document: 00513873039 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 No. 16-11051 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
D. RAY STRONG, as Liquidating Trustee of the Consolidated Legacy Debtors Liquidating Trust, the Castle Arch Opportunity Partners I, LLC Liquidating Trust and the Castle Arch Opportunity Partners II, LLC
More informationsmb 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 informationCase 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
Case 1:11-cv-03775-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
More informationIN 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 informationCase 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 informationbrl 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 informationMEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING THE TRUSTEE S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 26(d) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Pg 1 of 19 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Adv. Proc. No. 08-01789 (SMB)
More informationELECTRONIC CITATION: 2011 FED App. 0011P (6th Cir.) File Name: 11b0011p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2011 FED App. 0011P (6th Cir.) File Name: 11b0011p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT In re: ) Treasure Isles HC, Inc., ) ) Debtor. ) ) ) Cousins Properties, Inc.,
More information[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2018] No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1760663 Filed: 11/19/2018 Page 1 of 17 [ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2018] No. 18-3052 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IN RE:
More informationBRIEF OF APPELLEE, CASH FLOW EXPERTS, INC.
NO. 11-41349 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, VS. WILBUR DELMAS WHITEHEAD, d/b/a Whitehead Production Equipment, Defendant-Appellant,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. DAMIAN STINNIE, et al.,
Appeal: 17-1740 Doc: 41 Filed: 08/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 12 No. 17-1740 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DAMIAN STINNIE, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, RICHARD HOLCOMB, in his
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-19-2006 In Re: Weinberg Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-2558 Follow this and additional
More informationMEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING OMNIBUS MOTIONS TO DISMISS
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION : CORPORATION, : Plaintiff, : : against : :
More informationCase: Document: Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Filed: September 04, 2012
Case: 12-4055 Document: 006111420965 Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 Deborah S. Hunt Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
More informationCase 1:12-cv CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:12-cv-04873-CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR TO WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR
More informationCase No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case: 13-4330 Document: 003111516193 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/24/2014 Case No. 13-4330, 13-4394 & 13-4501 (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et
More informationRUSSELL EMORY EILBER OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS December 7, 2017 FLOOR CARE SPECIALISTS, INC., ET AL.
PRESENT: All the Justices RUSSELL EMORY EILBER OPINION BY v. Record No. 161311 JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS December 7, 2017 FLOOR CARE SPECIALISTS, INC., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1056 Document #1726769 Filed: 04/16/2018 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association,
More informationSEVENTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FILING CHECKLIST
NOTE: Items 1-2 are in Monospaced type and items 3-30 are in Proportional type. 1. The docketing fee, if applicable, must be paid. Cir. R.3(b). 2. Lead counsel must be admitted to practice before the Seventh
More informationsmb Doc 415 Filed 09/15/17 Entered 09/15/17 18:51:08 Main Document Pg 1 of 22
Pg 1 of 22 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 informationCOGA S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE
Court of Appeals, State of Colorado 2 East 14 th Ave., Denver, CO 80203 Name & Address of Lower Court: District Court, Larimer County, Colorado Trial Court Judge: The Honorable Gregory M. Lammons Case
More informationSection 546(e) Safe Harbor Defense: When to Utilize and When to Preclude. Amanda Tersigni, J.D. Candidate 2018
Section 546(e) Safe Harbor Defense: When to Utilize and When to Preclude 2017 Volume IX No. 28 Section 546(e) Safe Harbor Defense: When to Utilize and When to Preclude Amanda Tersigni, J.D. Candidate 2018
More informationREPLY 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 informationIn the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case 15-2366, Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, 1863463, Page1 of 14 15 2366 cv Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. Bank of New York MellonTrust Co., N.A. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST
More informationCase 1:11-cv JSR Document 30 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 22
Case 111-cv-07825-JSR Document 30 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES INVESTOR
More informationCase 3:10-cv BR Document 123 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 2969
Case 3:10-cv-00750-BR Document 123 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 2969 STUART F. DELERY Assistant Attorney General DIANE KELLEHER Assistant Branch Director AMY POWELL amy.powell@usdoj.gov LILY FAREL
More informationCase 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 informationFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 16, 2009 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend its Rules. These amendments are
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BACHARACH, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
In re: LARRY WAYNE PARR, a/k/a Larry W. Parr, a/k/a Larry Parr, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit May 22, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-1085 Document #1725473 Filed: 04/05/2018 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS,
More informationCONCURRENT SESSION. Lisa M. Schweitzer, Moderator Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. Paul M. Basta Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Cross-Border Bankruptcy Issues CONCURRENT SESSION Lisa M. Schweitzer, Moderator Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP Paul M. Basta Kirkland & Ellis LLP Michael Genereux The Blackstone Group L.P. Hon. Allan
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.
Case No. 2010-1544 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationcv(L) et al. In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia et al.)
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1-1-cv(L) et al. In re Terrorist Attacks on September, 001 (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia et al.) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Argued: March 0, 0 Decided:
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff Appellee,
USCA Case #16-5202 Document #1653121 Filed: 12/28/2016 Page 1 of 11 No. 16-5202 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff Appellee,
More informationCase , Document 77, 07/13/2017, , Page1 of United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit NATHANIEL SIMS,
Case 16-1587, Document 77, 07/13/2017, 2077863, Page1 of 22 16-1587 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit NATHANIEL SIMS, v. ANDREW ELLIS, C.O., ROBERT MOSKO, C.O., K. FOOSE, C.O., DAVID
More informationSecond Circuit Holds Bankruptcy Code Safe Harbors Bar State Law Fraudulent Conveyance Claims Brought By Individual Creditors
Second Circuit Holds Bankruptcy Code Safe Harbors Bar State Law Fraudulent Conveyance Claims Brought By Individual Creditors Lisa M. Schweitzer and Daniel J. Soltman * This article explains two recent
More informationTRUSTEE 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 informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
USCA Case #12-1115 Document #1386189 Filed: 07/27/2012 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NOEL CANNING, A DIVISION OF THE NOEL CORPORATION, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent
More informationCase 1:12-cv JSR Document 11 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:12-cv-02660-JSR Document 11 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------- x IRVING H. PICARD, Plaintiff, -v- SONJA
More informationCase 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 informationsmb Doc Filed 03/26/18 Entered 03/26/18 12:57:00 Main Document Pg 1 of 3. Adv. Pro. No (SMB)
Pg 1 of 3 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Applicant, Adv. Pro. No. 08-1789 (SMB) SIPA Liquidation v. (Substantively Consolidated)
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
No. 16-60104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, v. Plaintiff- Appellant, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 18-15068, 04/10/2018, ID: 10831190, DktEntry: 137-2, Page 1 of 15 Nos. 18-15068, 18-15069, 18-15070, 18-15071, 18-15072, 18-15128, 18-15133, 18-15134 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More information