Irving H. Picard v. Lawrence R. Velvel
Plaintiff: Irving H. Picard
Defendant: Lawrence R. Velvel
In Re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
Case Number: 1:2012cv01136
Filed: February 14, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Jed S Rakoff
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 157
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 4, 2014. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 4, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER denying #1 Motion to Withdraw Bankruptcy Reference. On July 10, 2014, the Court issued an Order directing counsel to parties with individual issues not addressed by the Court's decisions in the consolidated withdrawals to inform the Court by letter by July 18, 2014. See ECF No. 552. The Court received several such letters and addressed the issues they raised in separate Orders. Any remaining motions to withdraw the reference are hereby denied and all the adversary proceedings are returned to the Bankruptcy Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to close all the civil cases seeking to withdraw the reference related to this matter. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 8/1/2014) (mro)
May 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 6 CONSENT ORDER AMENDING STERN COMMON BRIEFING ORDER: On consent of (i) the above-captioned defendants (collectively, "Stern Withdrawal Defendants"), (ii) Irving H. Picard, as Trustee (the "Trustee") for the substantively consolidated liquidation proceedings of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC under the Securities Investor Protection Act, and (iii) the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC", together with the Stern Withdrawal Defendants and the Trustee, the "Parties"), the Order, In re: Madoff Securities, No. 12-MC-115 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. April 13, 2012) (ECF No.4) (the "Stern Order") shall hereby be modified to permit the following: (1) Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, conflicts counsel for the Trustee, may file a joinder, not to exceed two pages (excluding exhibits identifying the relevant adversary proceedings), to the Trustee's opposition to the Consolidated Brief on Behalf of Stern Withdrawal Defendants Responding to Issues Raised by Order of the Court Entered on April 13, 2012 ("Stern Withdrawal Defendants' Brief"), on behalf of the Trustee in certain of the adversary proceedings listed on Exhibit A to the Stern Order on or before May 25, 2012; and (2) Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, special counsel to the Trustee, may file a joinder, not to exceed two pages (excluding exhibits identifying the relevant adversary proceedings), to the Trustee's opposition to the Stern Withdrawal Defendants' Brief on behalf of the Trustee in certain of the adversary proceedings listed on Exhibit A to the Stern Order on or before May 25, 2012. In either case, the respective joinders may only specify what portions of the Trustee's opposition are joined and may not make or offer any additional substantive argument. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 5/24/2012) (js)
May 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER: The reference of the Adversary Proceedings listed in Exhibit A is withdrawn, in part, from the Bankruptcy Court to this Court solely with respect to the Antecedent Debt Defendants for the limited purpose of hearing and determining whether and to what extent (i) transfers made by Madoff Securities that the Trustee seeks to avoid were made in exchange for value, such as antecedent debts that Madoff Securities owed to the Antecedent Debt Defendants at the time of the transfers. The Trustee and SIPC are deemed to have raised, in response to all pending motions for withdrawal of the reference based on the Withdrawn Antecedent Debt Issue, all arguments previously raised by either or both of them in opposition to all such motions granted by the Prior Antecedent Debt Withdrawal Rulings, and such objections or arguments are deemed to be overruled, solely with respect to the Withdrawn Antecedent Debt Issue, for the reasons stated in the Prior Antecedent Debt Withdrawal Rulings. All objections that could be raised by the Trustee and/or SIPC to the pending motions to withdraw the reference in the Adversary Proceedings, and the defenses and responses thereto that may be raised by the affected defendants, are deemed preserved on all matters. On or before June 25, 2012, the Antecedent Debt Defendants shall file a single consolidated motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (made applicable to the Adversary Proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012) and a single consolidated supporting memorandum of law, not to exceed fifty (50) pages (together, the "Antecedent Debt Motion to Dismiss"). The Trustee and SIPC shall each file a memorandum of law in opposition to the Antecedent Debt Motion to Dismiss, not to exceed fifty (50) pages each, addressing the Withdrawn Antecedent Debt Issue on or before July 25, 2012. The Antecedent Debt Defendants shall file one consolidated reply brief, not to exceed thirty (30) pages, on or before August 8, 2012. The Court will hold oral argument on the Antecedent Debt Motion to Dismiss on August 20, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. (the "Hearing Date"). On or before August 8, 2012, the Antecedent Debt Defendants shall designate one lead counsel to advocate their position at oral argument on the Hearing Date, but any other attorney who wishes to be heard may appear and so request. The caption displayed on this Order shall be used as the caption for all pleadings, notices and briefs to be filed pursuant to this Order. All communications and documents (including drafts) exchanged between and among any of the defendants in any of the adversary proceedings, and/or their respective attorneys, shall be deemed to be privileged communications and/or work product, as the case may be, subject to a joint interest privilege. This Order is without prejudice to any and all grounds for withdrawal of the reference (other than the Withdrawn Antecedent Debt Issue) raised in the Adversary Proceedings by the Antecedent Debt Defendants and any matter that cannot properly be raised or resolved on a Rule 12 motion, all of which are preserved. Nothing in this Order shall: (a) waive or resolve any issue not specifically raised in the Antecedent Debt Motion to Dismiss; (b) waive or resolve any issue raised or that could be raised by any party other than with respect to the Withdrawn Antecedent Debt Issue, including related issues that cannot be resolved on a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; or (c) notwithstanding Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2) or Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012(g)(2), except as specifically raised in the Antecedent Debt Motion to Dismiss, limit, restrict or impair any defense or argument that has been raised or could be raised by any Antecedent Debt Defendant in a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012. Nothing in this Order shall constitute an agreement or consent by any Antecedent Debt Defendant to pay the fees and expenses of any attorney other than such defendant's own retained attorney. This paragraph shall not affect or compromise any rights of the Trustee or SIPC. This Order is without prejudice to and preserves all objections of the Trustee and SIPC to timely-filed motions for withdrawal of the reference currently pending before this Court (other than the withdrawal of the reference solely with respect to the Withdrawn Antecedent Debt Issue) with respect to the Adversary Proceedings, and the defenses and responses thereto that may be raised by the affected defendants, are deemed preserved on all matters. The procedures established by this Order, or by further Order of this Court, shall constitute the sole and exclusive procedures for determination of the Withdrawn Antecedent Debt Issue in the Adversary Proceedings (except for any appellate practice resulting from such determination), and this Court shall be the forum for such determination. To the extent that briefing or argument schedules were previously established with respect to the Withdrawn Antecedent Debt Issue in any of the Adversary Proceedings, this Order supersedes all such schedules solely with respect to the Withdrawn Antecedent Debt Issue. All other provisions as further set forth in this order. ( Motions due by 6/25/2012, Responses due by 7/25/2012, Replies due by 8/8/2012, Oral Argument set for 8/20/2012 at 04:00 PM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 5/12/2012) (djc)
February 22, 2012 Filing 4 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Nicholas J. Cremona on behalf of Irving H. Picard (Cremona, Nicholas)
February 22, 2012 Filing 3 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Oren J. Warshavsky on behalf of Irving H. Picard (Warshavsky, Oren)
February 22, 2012 Mailed notice to the attorney(s) of record. (rdz)
February 22, 2012 Mailed letter to the United States Bankruptcy Court - Southern District of New York as notification of filing of Bankruptcy Motion to Withdraw Reference (Case Number: 08-01789 (BRL).) with the U.S.D.C. - S.D.N.Y. and the assignment of S.D.N.Y. Case Number: 12-cv-01136-JSR. (rdz)
February 22, 2012 CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Create association to 1:11-cv-03605-JSR. (pgu)
February 17, 2012 Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr is no longer assigned to the case. (pgu)
February 14, 2012 Filing 1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5412A, 08-1789 (BRL).Document filed by Lawrence R. Velvel. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Law in Support, #2 Declaration in Support, #3 Exhibit A-F)(bkar)
February 14, 2012 Magistrate Judge Frank Maas is so designated. (bkar)
February 14, 2012 Case Designated ECF. (bkar)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Irving H. Picard v. Lawrence R. Velvel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Lawrence R. Velvel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
In re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Irving H. Picard
Represented By: Oren J. Warshavsky
Represented By: Nicholas J. Cremona
Represented By: Marc E. Hirschfield
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?