Irving Picard v. Fairfield Sentry Limited (In Liquidation) et al
| Irving H. Picard |
| Fairfield Greenwich Limited, Andrew Smith, Gordon McKenzie, Lourdes Barreneche, Fairfield International Managers, Inc., Irongate Global Strategy Fund Limited, Fairfield Greenwich (UK) Limited, Greenwich Bermuda Limited, Jeffrey Tucker, Chester Global Strategy Fund Limited, Fairfield Greenwich Partners, LLC, Greenwich Sentry Partners, L.P., Cornelis Boele, FIF Advanced, Ltd., Fairfield Greenwich Advisors LLC, Andres Piedrahita, Jacqueline Harry, Corina Noel Piedrahita, Fairfield Investment Trust, Harold Greisman, Fairfield Investment Fund Limited, Philip Toub, Walter Noel, Fairfield Investors (Yen) Limited, Fairfield Lambda Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited (In Liquidation), Chester Global Strategy Fund, Greenwich Sentry, L.P., Daniel Lipton, Chester Management Cayman Limited, Stable Fund, Amit Vijayvergiya, Richard Landsberger, Mark Mckeefry, Fairfield Sentry Limited (In Liquidation), Fairfield Investors (Swiss Franc) Limited, Gregory Bowes, Fairfield Greenwich Fund (Luxembourg), Santiago Reyes, Charles Murphy, Sentry Select Limited, Fairfield Heathcliff Capital LLC, Fairfield Greenwich GP, LLC, Fairfield Investors (Euro) Limited, Fairfield Greenwich (Bermuda), Ltd. and Robert Blum |
| Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC |
| 1:2012cv02638 |
| April 5, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Jed S Rakoff |
| Bankruptcy Withdrawal |
| 28 U.S.C. § 157 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 7, 2014. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 16
OPINION AND ORDER: In sum, the Court finds that section 550(a) does not apply extraterritorially to allow for the recovery of subsequent transfers received abroad by a foreign transferee from a foreign transferor. Therefore, the Trustee's recovery claims are dismissed to the extent that they seek to recover purely foreign transfers. Except to the extent provided in other orders, the Court directs that the following adversary proceedings be returned to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order: (1) those cases listed in Exhibit A of item number 167 on the docket of 12-mc-115; and (2) those cases listed in the schedule attached to item number 468 on the docket of 12-mc-115 that were designated as having been added to the "extraterritoriality" consolidated briefing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 7/6/2014) (kgo)
|
|
Filing 15
OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the Court concludes that, in a SIPA proceeding such as this, a defendant may succeed on a motion to dismiss by showing that the complaint does not plausibly allege that that defendant did not act in good faith. Because this determination must be made on the basis of the specific allegations in the Trustee's various complaints, the Court, having set out the general framework, hereby leaves it to the Bankruptcy Court to determine in any given instance whether the foregoing standards have been met. Accordingly, the Court directs that the following adversary proceedings be returned to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order: (1) those cases listed in Exhibit A of item number 197 on the docket of 12 Misc. 115; and (2) those cases listed in the schedule attached to item number 468 on the docket of 12 Misc. 115 that were designated as having been added to the "good faith" consolidated briefing. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 4/27/2014) (mro)
|
|
Filing 14
OPINION AND ORDER: Except to the extent provided in other orders, the Court directs that what remains of the adversary proceedings listed in Exhibit A of item number 119 on the docket of 12 Misc. 115 be returned to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 4/15/2013) (tro)
|
|
Filing 13
ORDER: BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: The Prior Administrative Order is hereby amended and superseded by this Order and the Adversary Proceedings listed on Exhibit A are incorporated by reference herein: The motions to withdraw the reference in the Adversary Proceedings identified on Exhibit B hereto are governed by the Consolidated Briefing Orders and Permissive Withdrawal Orders and shall be resolved through the common briefing ordered therein; The motions to withdraw the reference in the Adversary Proceedings identified on Exhibit C hereto, which raised permissive withdrawal arguments that were previously deferred by prior orders of this Court, are governed by the Permissive Withdrawal Orders and, for the reasons stated therein, the Court regards the permissive withdrawal arguments made in such motions as subsumed by the consolidated briefing on the issues presented by the Stern Order; Accordingly, the Court will resolve the permissive withdrawal issues raised in the motions to withdraw the reference in the Adversary Proceedings identified on Exhibit C when the Court decides the motion described in the Stern Order; The prior consent orders entered by this Court with respect to the Adversary Proceedings identified on Exhibit C hereto are hereby vacated and superseded by this Order; The resolution of the issues covered by Consolidated Briefing Orders and Permissive Withdrawal Orders shall govern the motions to withdraw the reference pending in the Adversary Proceedings and no further action is required with respect to such motions; Any individual briefing schedules previously established with respect to motions to withdraw the reference pending in the Adversary Proceedings are hereby vacated. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 7/11/2012) (pl)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER: BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 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 Good Faith Standard Defendants for the limited purpose of hearing and determining whether SIPA and other securities laws alter the standard the Trustee must meet in order to show that a defendant did not receive transfers in "good faith" under either 11 U.S.C. 548(c) or 11 U.S.C. 550(b). Except as otherwise provided herein or in other orders of this Court, the reference to the Bankruptcy Court is otherwise maintained for all other purposes; On or before July 20, 2012, the Initial Transferee Defendants and the Subsequent Transferee Defendants shall each file a consolidated memorandum of law, not to exceed forty(40) pages, each addressing the Good Faith Standard Issues (the "Initial Transferee Good Faith Standard Brief' and the "Subsequent Transferee Good Faith Standard Brief'; collectively, the "Opening Good Faith Standard Briefs"). On or before August 10, 2012, the Good Faith Standard Defendants may file up to five (5) separate supplemental briefs reflecting materially relevant differences between identifiable subgroups of defendants to raise issues relevant to each subgroup, and which may seek dismissal, but which are not otherwise raised or addressed in the Opening Good Faith Standard Briefs (each, "Supplemental Good Faith Standard Brief," and together with the Opening Good Faith Standard Briefs, the "Good Faith Standard Briefs"), with each such Supplemental Good Faith Standard Brief not to exceed eight (8) pages; On or before August 31, 2012, the Trustee and SIPC shall each file a memorandum of law in opposition to the Opening Good Faith Standard Briefs, not to exceed forty (40) pages each, addressing the Good Faith Standard Issues; On or before September 14, 2012, the Initial Transferee Defendants and Subsequent Transferee Defendants shall each file a consolidated reply brief, not to exceed twenty (20) pages; On or before September 14, 2012, the Trustee and SIPC may either (i) each file a separate memorandum of law in opposition to each Supplemental Good Faith Standard Brief filed with the Court, with each opposition not to exceed eight (8) pages or (ii) choose to file separate consolidated memoranda of law in opposition to the Supplemental Good Faith Standard Briefs with such consolidated brief(s) filed by the Trustee and SIPC not to exceed a total of forty (40) pages in the aggregate for each of the Trustee and SIPC; Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, which is conflicts counsel for the Trustee, and Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, which is special counsel to the Trustee, each may file a joinder, not to exceed two (2) pages (excluding exhibits), on behalf of the Trustee in certain of the adversary proceedings listed on Exhibit A hereto, to the Trustee's opposition to (i) the Opening Good Faith Standard Briefs on or before August 31, 2012 and (ii) to each Supplemental Good Faith Standard Brief on or before September 14, 2012; The Court will hold oral argument on the matters raised in the Good Faith Standard Briefs filed by the Good Faith Standard Defendants and the Trustee's and SIPC's oppositions thereto on October 12, 2012, at 4:00 p.m. (the "Good Faith Standard Hearing Date"); 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; The procedures established by this Order, or by further order of this Court, shall constitute the sole and exclusive procedures for determination of the Good Faith Standard Issues 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 Good Faith Standard Issues in any of the Adversary Proceedings, this Order supersedes all such schedules solely with respect to the Good Faith Standard Issues. To the extent that briefing or argument schedules are prospectively established with respect to motions to withdraw the reference or motions to dismiss in any of the Adversary Proceedings, the Good Faith Standard Issues shall be excluded from such briefing or argument and such order is vacated. For the avoidance of doubt, to the extent any of the Good Faith Standard Defendants have issues other than the Good Faith Standard Issues or issues set forth in the other common briefing orders that were withdrawn, those issues will continue to be briefed on the schedule previously ordered by the Court. Except as stated in this paragraph, this Order shall not be deemed or construed to modify, withdraw or reverse any prior order of the Court that granted withdrawal of the reference in any Adversary Proceeding for any reason, and as further set forth within., ( Oral Argument set for 10/12/2012 at 04:00 PM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 6/23/2012) (pl)
|
|
Filing 11
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 Extraterritoriality Defendants for the limited purpose of hearing and determining whether SIP A and/or the Bankruptcy Code as incorporated by SIPA apply extraterritorially, permitting the Trustee to avoid the initial Transfers that were received abroad or to recover from initial, immediate or mediate foreign transferees. Except as otherwise provided herein or in other orders of this Court, the reference to the Bankruptcy Court is otherwise maintained for all other purposes. The Trustee and SIPC are deemed to have raised, in response to all pending motions for withdrawal of the reference based on the Extraterritoriality Issue, all arguments previously raised by either or both of them in opposition to all such motions granted by the Extraterritoriality Withdrawal Ruling, and such objections or arguments are deemed to be overruled, solely with respect to the Extraterritoriality Issue, for the reasons stated in the Extraterritoriality Withdrawal Ruling. 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 July 13, 2012, the Extraterritoriality 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 forty (40) pages (together, the "Extraterritoriality Motion to Dismiss"). The Trustee and SIPC shall each file a memorandum of law in opposition to the Extraterritoriality Motion to Dismiss, not to exceed forty (40) pages each, addressing the Extraterritoriality Withdrawal Ruling Issue (the "Trustee's Opposition") on or before August 17, 2012. Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, which is conflicts counsel for the Trustee, and Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, which is special counsel to the Trustee, each may file a joinder, not to exceed two (2) pages (excluding exhibits identifying the relevant adversary proceedings), to the Trustee's Opposition, on behalf of the Trustee in certain of the adversary proceedings listed on Exhibit A hereto on or before August 17, 2012. In either case, the respective joinders may only specify what portions of the Trustee's Opposition are joined and shall not make or offer any additional substantive argument. The Extraterritoriality Defendants shall file one consolidated reply brief, not to exceed twenty (20) pages, on or before August 31, 2012 (the "Reply Brier'). In the event the Trustee files an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") in any of the Adversary Proceedings after the Extraterritoriality Motion to Dismiss is filed, the Reply Brief shall include a reference (by civil action number and docket number only) to a representative Amended Complaint filed by the Trustee against Extraterritoriality Defendants. Any further requirement that the Amended Complaints subject to the Extraterritoriality Motion to Dismiss be identified or filed is deemed waived and satisfied. In the event the Trustee files an Amended Complaint, he shall, at the time the Amended Complaint is filed, provide the Extraterritoriality Defendants a blackline reflecting the changes made in the Amended Complaint from the then operative complaint. The Court will hold oral argument on the Extraterritoriality Motion to Dismiss on September 21, 2012, at 4:00 p.m. (the "Hearing Date"). On or before August 31, 2012, the Extraterritoriality 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 Extraterritoriality Issue) raised in the Adversary Proceedings by the Extraterritoriality 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 Extraterritoriality Motion to Dismiss; (b) waive or resolve any issue raised or that could be raised by any party other than with respect to the Extraterritoriality 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 Extraterritoriality Motion to Dismiss, limit, restrict or impair any defense or argument that has been raised or could be raised by any Extraterritoriality Defendant in a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012, or any other defense or right of any nature available to any Extraterritoriality Defendant (including, without limitation, all defenses based on lack of personal jurisdiction or insufficient service of process), or any argument or defense that could be raised by the Trustee or SIPC in response thereto. Nothing in this Order shall constitute an agreement or consent by any Extraterritoriality 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 Extraterritoriality 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 Extraterritoriality 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 Extraterritoriality Issue in any of the Adversary Proceedings, this Order supersedes all such schedules solely with respect to the Extraterritoriality Issue. To the extent that briefing or argument schedules are prospectively established with respect to motions to withdraw the reference or motions to dismiss in any of the Adversary Proceedings, the Extraterritoriality Issue shall be excluded from such briefing or argument and such order is vacated. For the avoidance of doubt, to the extent any of the Extraterritoriality Defendants have issues other than the Extraterritoriality Issue or issues set forth in the Common Briefing Order that were withdrawn, those issues will continue to be briefed on the schedule previously ordered by the Court. Except as stated in this paragraph, this Order shall not be deemed or construed to modify, withdraw or reverse any prior Order of the Court that granted withdrawal of the reference in any Adversary Proceeding for any reason.( Motions due by 7/13/2012., Responses due by 8/17/2012, Replies due by 8/31/2012., Oral Argument set for 9/21/2012 at 04:00 PM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 6/6/2012) (jfe)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER: The reference of the Adversary Proceedings is withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court to this Court solely with respect to the Section 546(e) Withdrawal Defendants, in part, for the limited purpose of hearing and determining issues relating to the application of Section 546(e) in the Adversary Proceedings, including, without limitation, as further set forth in this Order. On or before July 27, 2012, (i) the Financial Institution Defendants and (ii) all remaining Section 546(e) Withdrawal Defendants, including all Opt-Out Defendants, shall each file (x) a consolidated motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (made applicable to the Adversary Proceedings by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012) and (y) a consolidated supporting memorandum of law, not to exceed forty (40) pages each (the "Motion to Dismiss"). The Motion to Dismiss shall include a reference (by civil action number and docket number only) to one or more representative complaints filed by the Trustee against either (a) a Initial Transferee Defendant; and (b) a Financial Institution Defendant. Any further requirement that the Pleadings subject to the Motion to Dismiss be identified or filed is deemed waived and satisfied. The Trustee and SIPC may each file a memorandum of law in opposition to each Motion to Dismiss filed by the Financial Institution Defendants and the remaining Section 546(e) Withdrawal Defendants, with each opposition not to exceed forty (40) pages, on or before September 28, 2012. The Financial Institution Defendants and the remaining Section 546(e) Withdrawal Defendants may each file a consolidated reply brief, not to exceed twenty (20) pages each, on or before October 19, 2012 (the "Reply Brief'). In the event the Trustee files an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") in any of the Adversary Proceedings after the Motion to Dismiss is filed, the Reply Brief shall include a reference (by civil action number and docket number only) to a representative Amended Complaint filed by the Trustee against an Initial Transferee Defendant and a Financial Institution Defendant. Any further requirement that the Amended Complaints subject to the Motion to Dismiss be identified or filed is deemed waived and satisfied. In the event the Trustee files an Amended Complaint, he shall, at the time the Amended Complaint is filed, provide the Section 546(e) Withdrawal Defendants a blackline reflecting the changes made in the Amended Complaint from the then operative complaint. The Court will hold oral argument on the Motions to Dismiss on October 30, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. (the "Hearing Date"). On or before October 19, 2012, the Financial Institution Defendants and the remaining Section 546(e) Withdrawal Defendants shall each 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. and (b) a Financial Institution Defendant. Any further requirement that the Pleadings subject to the Motion to Dismiss be identified or filed is deemed waived and satisfied. ( Oral Argument set for 10/30/2012 at 04:00 PM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 5/15/2012) (js)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1)The reference of the Adversary Proceedings is withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court, in part and solely with respect to the Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Defendants, to this Court for the limited purpose of deciding the following issues (the "Withdrawn Standing and SLUSA Issues"): (a) whether the Trustee has standing to bring common law claims; and (b) whether SLUSA preempts the Trustee's common law claims. Except as otherwise provided herein or in orders of this Court, the reference to the Bankruptcy Court is otherwise maintained for all other purposes; 2) The Trustee and SIPC are deemed to have raised, in response to all pending motions for withdrawal of the reference based on the Withdrawn Standing and SLUSA Issues, all arguments previously raised by either or both of them in opposition to all such motions granted by the Prior Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Ruling, and such objections or arguments are deemed to be overruled, solely with respect to the Withdrawn Standing and SLUSA Issues, for the reasons stated in the Prior Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Ruling; 3) 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; 4.) The Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Defendants shall file one consolidated opening brief, not to exceed forty ( 40) pages, addressing the Withdrawn Standing and SLUSA Issues on or before August 3, 2012. Separately, on or before August 3, 2012, certain Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Defendants as to whom the Trustee asserts the applicability of the "insider exception" to the in pari delicto I Wagoner doctrine may submit a brief, not to exceed seven (7) pages, on that part of the standing issue; 5.) The Trustee and SIPC shall each file an opposition brief, not to exceed forty (40) pages each, addressing the Withdrawn Standing and SLUSA Issues on or before September 14, 2012. Separately, on or before September 14, 2012, the Trustee may submit a separate brief, notto exceed seven (7) pages, regarding the effect of the "insider exception" on the in pari delicto I Wagoner doctrine; 6.) The Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Defendants shall file one consolidated reply brief, not to exceed twenty (20) pages, on or before October 5, 2012. Separately, on or before October 5, 2012, certain Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Defendants as to whom the Trustee asserts the applicability of the "insider exception" to the in pari delicto I Wagoner doctrine may submit a separate reply brief, not to exceed five (5) pages, on that part of the standing issue; 7.) The Court will hold oral argument concerning the Withdrawn Standing and SLUSA Issues on October 15, 2012, at 4:00 p.m. (the "Hearing Date"); 8.) On or before October 5, 2012, the Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Defendants shall designate one lead counsel to advocate their position at oral argument on the Hearing Date. Separately, on or before October 5, 2012, the certain Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Defendants as to whom the Trustee asserts the applicability of the "insider exception" to the inpari delicto I Wagoner doctrine shall designate one counsel to advocate their position on that part of the standing issue at oral argument on the Hearing Date; 9.) 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; 10.) All communications and documents (including drafts) exchanged between and among any of the defendants in the Adversary Proceedings listed on Exhibit A, 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; 11.) This Order is without prejudice to any and all grounds for withdrawal of the reference (other than the Withdrawn Standing and SLUSA Issues) raised in the Adversary Proceedings by the Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Defendants, all of which are preserved; 12.) Nothing in this Order shall: (a) waive or resolve any issue raised by any party other than the withdrawal of the reference solely with respect to the Standing and SLUSA Issues; (b) limit, restrict or impair any defense or argument that has been raised or could be raised by any Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Defendant in a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012, or any other defense or right of any nature available to any Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal Defendant (including, without limitation, all defenses based on lack of personal jurisdiction or insufficient service of process), or any argument or defense that could be raised by the Trustee or SIPC in response thereto; and (c) be deemed or construed as the submission of a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012; 13.) Nothing in this Order shall constitute an agreement or consent by any Standing and SLUSA Withdrawal 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. 14. 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 Standing and SLUSA Issues) 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; 15.) The procedures established by this Order shall constitute the sole and exclusive procedures for determination of the Withdrawn Standing and SLUSA Issues in the Adversary Proceedings, 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 Standing and SLUSA Issues in any of the Adversary Proceedings, this Order supersedes all such schedules solely with respect to the Withdrawn Standing and SLUSA Issues. To the extent that briefing or argument schedules are prospectively established with respect to motions to withdraw the reference or motions to dismiss in any of the Adversary Proceedings, the Withdrawn Standing and SLUSA Issues shall be excluded from such briefing or argument. Except as stated in this paragraph, this Order shall not be deemed or construed to modify, withdraw or reverse any prior Order of the Court that granted withdrawal of the reference in any Adversary Proceeding for any reason. (Oral Argument set for 10/15/2012 at 04:00 PM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 5/15/2012) (jar)
|
|
Filing 9
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) (jfe)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (pgu) |
| Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman is so designated. (pgu) |
| CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Create association to 1:11-cv-03605-JSR. Notice of Assignment to follow. (pgu) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Nicholas J. Cremona on behalf of Irving H. Picard (Cremona, Nicholas) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Oren J. Warshavsky on behalf of Irving H. Picard (Warshavsky, Oren) |
| Mailed notice re: #3 Declaration in Support,,, Mail Letter of Notification to Bankruptcy Court, Case Referred as Possibly Related/Similar, #1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1239A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1239A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1239A, 08-1789 (BRL)., #4 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement,, #2 Memorandum of Law in Support,,, Case Designated ECF to the attorney(s) of record. (pgu) |
| 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: 09-1239A (BRL).) with the U.S.D.C. - S.D.N.Y. and the assignment of S.D.N.Y. Case Number: 12-cv-2638. (pgu) |
| Filing 4 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Lourdes Barreneche, Chester Management Cayman Limited, Fairfield Greenwich (Bermuda), Ltd., Fairfield Greenwich (UK) Limited, Fairfield Greenwich Advisors LLC, Fairfield Greenwich Limited, Fairfield Heathcliff Capital LLC, Fairfield International Managers, Inc., Harold Greisman, Jacqueline Harry, Richard Landsberger, Daniel Lipton, Gordon McKenzie, Mark Mckeefry, Charles Murphy, Corina Noel Piedrahita, Santiago Reyes, Andrew Smith, Philip Toub.(Cunha, Mark) |
| Filing 3 DECLARATION of Mark G. Cunha in Support re: #1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1239A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1239A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1239A, 08-1789 (BRL).. Document filed by Lourdes Barreneche, Robert Blum, Cornelis Boele, Gregory Bowes, Chester Management Cayman Limited, Fairfield Greenwich (Bermuda), Ltd., Fairfield Greenwich Advisors LLC, Fairfield Heathcliff Capital LLC, Fairfield International Managers, Inc., Harold Greisman, Jacqueline Harry, Richard Landsberger, Daniel Lipton, Gordon McKenzie, Mark Mckeefry, Charles Murphy, Walter Noel, Andres Piedrahita, Corina Noel Piedrahita, Santiago Reyes, Andrew Smith, Philip Toub, Jeffrey Tucker, Amit Vijayvergiya. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F)(bkar) |
| Filing 2 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1239A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1239A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1239A, 08-1789 (BRL).. Document filed by Lourdes Barreneche, Robert Blum, Cornelis Boele, Gregory Bowes, Chester Management Cayman Limited, Fairfield Greenwich (Bermuda), Ltd., Fairfield Greenwich (UK) Limited, Fairfield Greenwich Advisors LLC, Fairfield Greenwich Limited, Fairfield Heathcliff Capital LLC, Fairfield International Managers, Inc., Harold Greisman, Jacqueline Harry, Richard Landsberger, Daniel Lipton, Gordon McKenzie, Mark Mckeefry, Charles Murphy, Walter Noel, Andres Piedrahita, Corina Noel Piedrahita, Santiago Reyes, Andrew Smith, Philip Toub, Jeffrey Tucker, Amit Vijayvergiya. (bkar) |
| Filing 1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1239A, 08-1789 (BRL).Document filed by Richard Landsberger, Charles Murphy, Lourdes Barreneche, Fairfield Greenwich Advisors LLC, Cornelis Boele, Chester Management Cayman Limited, Santiago Reyes, Walter Noel, Fairfield Greenwich Limited, Harold Greisman, Philip Toub, Andres Piedrahita, Corina Noel Piedrahita, Fairfield Heathcliff Capital LLC, Fairfield Greenwich (Bermuda), Ltd., Robert Blum, Gregory Bowes, Gordon McKenzie, Fairfield International Managers, Inc., Jacqueline Harry, Amit Vijayvergiya, Jeffrey Tucker, Fairfield Greenwich (UK) Limited, Mark Mckeefry, Andrew Smith, Daniel Lipton.(bkar) |
| Case Designated ECF. (bkar) |
| CASE REFERRED TO Judge Jed S. Rakoff as possibly related to 11-cv-3605. (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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
