Irving H. Picard v. Sonja Kohn et al
| Irving H. Picard |
| Moishe Hartstein, Gerhard Randa, Daniele Cosulich, Harald Nograsek, Rina Hartstein, Bank Austria Cayman Islands Ltd., ReviTrust Services Est., Starvest Anstalt, Pioneer Global Asset Management, S.P.A., et al., Medicifinanz Consulting GmbH, Wilhelm Hemetsberger, Eurovaleur, Inc., Robert Alan Kohn, Peter Scheithauer, Andreas Schindler, John and Jane Doe Defendants 1- 100, Brera Servizi Aziendiale S.R.L., Erwin Kohn, Andreas Pirkner, Robert Reuss, 20:20 Medici AG, Ursula Radel-Leszczynski, Unicredit Bank Austria AG, Line Holdings Ltd., Redcrest Investments, Inc., Lifetrust AG, Netty Blau, Infovaleur, Inc., Bank Medici AG (Gibraltar), Tecno Development & Research LTD., M-Tech Services GmbH, Sonja Kohn, Werner Kretschmer, Stefan Zapotocky, Herald Asset Management Ltd., Windsor IBC, Inc., Manfred Kastner, Hassans International Law Firm, Shlomo Amselem, Herald Consult Ltd., Paul de Sury, Helmuth Frey, Absolute Portfolio Management Ltd., Werner Tripolt, Bank Austria Worldwide Fund Management Ltd., Palladium Capital Advisors LLC, Franco Mugnai, Sofipo Austria GmbH, Mordechai Landau, Mariadelmar Raule, Line Management Services Ltd., Josef Duregger, Erko, Inc., Medici Cayman Island Ltd., UniCredit S.p.A., Medici S.R.L., Alessandro Profumo, Tecno Development & Research S.R.L. and Line Group Ltd. |
| Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC |
| 1:2012cv02639 |
| 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 28, 2014. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 25
STIPULATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER: IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by counsel for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, and the defendants in the adversary proceedings listed above herein, subject to the approval of the Court, that in accordance with Consent Orders dated June 25, 2012 (item number 203 on the docket of 12-mc-115) and June 29, 2013 (item number 475 on the docket of 12-mc-115), the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 6, 2014 (item number 551 on the docket of 12-mc-115) is hereby supplemented to direct that the adversary proceedings listed above herein also be returned to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with that Opinion and Order. The Clerk is directed to docket the Opinion and Order dated July 6, 2014 in the adversary proceedings listed above herein. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 7/25/2014) (kgo)
|
|
Filing 26
OPINION AND ORDER 104497: 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)
|
| ***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 28 Opinion. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (mro) |
|
Filing 24
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 23
CONSENT ORDER: On consent of (i) the defendants listed herein and on Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the"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 Defendants and the Trustee, the "Parties"), the Parties agree as follows: l. In Picard v. Sonja Kahn, et al. No. 12-cv-02639 (JSR) (the "Kohn Action"),Defendants Starvest Anstalt and Lifetrust AG (hereinafter "Defendants Starvest and Lifetrust")were excluded from Exhibit A to the Order dated April 13, 2012, No. 12 MC 115 (S.D.N.Y .April 13, 2012) (ECF No.4) (the "Stern Order"); Exhibit A to the Order dated May 15, 2012, No. 12 MC 115 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2012) (ECF No. 119) (the "Section 546(e) Order"); Exhibit A to the Order dated June 6, 2012, No. 12 MC 115 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2012) (ECF No. 167) (the"Extraterritoriality Order"); Exhibit A to the Order dated June 23, 2012, No. 12 MC 115 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2012) (ECF No. 197) (the "Good Faith Order"); Opinion and Order dated January 4, 2013, No. 12 MC 115 (S.D.N.Y. January 4, 2013) (ECF No. 427) (the "Stern Opinion"); Opinion and Order dated April l5, 2013, No. 12 MC 115 (S.D.N.Y. April 15, 2013)(ECF No. 460) (the "Section 546(e) Opinion"), because the Trustee served the Summons and Complaint on Defendants Starvest and Lifetrust in the Kohn Action after the April 2, 2012 deadline for filing Motions to Withdraw the Reference to the Bankruptcy Court established pursuant to the Administrative Order Establishing Deadline for Filing Motions to Withdraw the Reference, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (BRL) (Bank. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2012) (ECF No. 4707) (the "Withdrawal Motion Deadline"), and the relevant Motion filed by Defendants Starvest and Lifetrust in the Kohn Action was filed on June 13, 2013. The Trustee, SIPC and Defendants Starvest and Lifetrust hereby agree that the Stern Order as entered shall apply to Defendants Starvest and Lifetrust in the Kohn Action nunc pro tunc to April 13, 2012; the Section 546(e)Order as entered shall apply to Defendants Starvest and Lifetrust in the Kohn Action nunc pro tunc to May 16, 2012; the Extraterritoriality Order as entered shall apply to Defendants Starvestand Lifetrust in the Kohn Action nunc pro tunc to June 7, 2012; the Good Faith Order as entered shall apply to Defendants Starvest and Lifetrust in the Kohn Action nunc pro tunc to June 25, 2012; the Stern Opinion as entered shall apply to Defendants Starvest and Lifetrust in the Kohn Action nunc pro tunc to January 4, 2013; and the Section 546(e) Opinion as entered shall apply to Defendants Starvest and Lifetrust in the Kohn Action nunc pro tunc to April 15, 2013.Defendants Starvest and Lifetrust in the Kohn Action will be covered by the Stern Order, Section 546(e) Order, Extraterritoriality Order, Good Faith Order, Stern Opinion, and Section 546(e)Opinion in all respects. 2. In Picard v. Union Securities Investment Trust Co., Ltd., et al., No. 13-cv-04429(JSR) (the "Union Sec. Action"), Defendants Union Securities Investment Trust Co., Ltd., Union USD Global Arbitrage Fund, Union USD Global Arbitrage A Fund, and Union Arbitrage Strategy Fund (collectively, the "Union Securities Defendants"), were excluded from Exhibit A to the Order dated May 12, 2012, No. 12 MC 115 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2012) (ECF No. 107) (the "Antecedent Debt Order"); Exhibit A to the Stern Order; Exhibit A to the Section 546(e) Order; Exhibit A to the Extraterritoriality Order; Exhibit A to the Good Faith Order; Stern Opinion; and Section 546(e) Opinion, because the Trustee served the Summons and Complaint on the Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action after the Withdrawal Motion Deadline, and the relevant Motion filed by the Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action was filed on June 25, 2013. The Trustee, SIPC and the Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action hereby agree that the Antecedent Debt Order as entered shall apply to the Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action nunc pro tunc to May 16, 2012; the Stern Order as entered shall apply to the Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action nunc pro tunc to April 13, 2012; the Section 546( e) Order as entered shall apply to the Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action nunc pro tunc to May 16, 2012; the Extraterritoriality Order as entered shall apply to the Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action nunc pro tunc to June 7, 2012; the Good Faith Order as entered shall apply to the Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action nunc pro tunc to June 25, 2012; the Stern Opinion as entered shall apply to the Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action nunc pro tunc to January 4, 2013; and the Section 546(e) Opinion as entered shall apply to the Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action nunc pro tunc to April 15, 2013. The Union Securities Defendants in the Union Sec. Action will be covered by the Antecedent Debt Order, Stern Order, Section 546(e)Order, Extraterritoriality Order, Good Faith Order, Stern Opinion, and Section 546(e) Opinion in all respects. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 6/29/2013) (js)
|
|
Filing 20
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 II 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) (js)
|
| Filing 16 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sheldon Eisenberger on behalf of Lifetrust AG, Starvest Anstalt. (Eisenberger, Sheldon) |
| Filing 15 JOINDER to join re: #1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).. Document filed by Starvest Anstalt, Lifetrust AG.(Eisenberger, Sheldon) |
|
Filing 22
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) (js)
|
|
Filing 12
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 21
OPINION AND ORDER: #102762 In sum, the Court follows other courts in this District, as well as its own prior precedent, in concluding that, though Stern precludes the Bankruptcy Court from finally deciding avoidance actions (unless, possibly, the Trustee has sought to disallow a claim to the estate under 502(d), the Bankruptcy Court nonetheless has the power to hear the matter in the first instance and recommend proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court further declines to withdraw the reference of these cases to the Bankruptcy Court "for cause shown" before the Bankruptcy Court has issued appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Except to the extent provided in other orders, the Court directs that what remains of the adversary proceedings listed in Exhibits A and C of item number four on the docket of 12 Misc. 115 be returned to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 1/4/2013) (js)
|
|
Filing 14
OPINION & ORDER: #102762 In sum, the Court follows other courts in this District, as well as its own prior precedent, in concluding that, though Stern precludes the Bankruptcy Court from finally deciding avoidance actions (unless, possibly, the Trustee has sought to disallow a claim to the estate under 502(d)), the Bankruptcy Court nonetheless has the power to hear the matter in the first instance and recommend proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court further declines to withdraw the reference of these cases to the Bankruptcy Court "for cause shown" before the Bankruptcy Court has issued appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Except to the extent provided in other orders, the Court directs that what remains of the adversary proceedings listed in Exhibits A and C of item number four on the docket of 12 Misc. 115 be returned to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 1/4/2013) ***Docketed pursuant to entry docketed in 12mc115 on 6/7/2013.*** (tro)
|
|
Filing 19
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) 'AJjth 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) (js)
|
|
Filing 18
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 4:00p.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. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 5/15/2012) (js)
|
|
Filing 11
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 10
ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION: granting #7 Motion for Nathan D. Adler to Appear Pro Hac Vice as counsel for the Kohn Defendants' (the "Kohn Defendants") in the above- captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 5/6/2012) (pl)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION: granting #8 Motion for Price O. Gielen to Appear Pro Hac Vice as counsel for the Kohn Defendants' (the "Kohn Defendants") in the above-captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 5/6/2012) (pl) Modified on 5/8/2012 (pl).
|
| CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on #7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $200.00, paid on 04/30/2012, Receipt Number 1036844. (jd) |
| CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on #8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $200.00, paid on 04/30/2012, Receipt Number 1036845. (jd) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Price O. Gielen to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Erwin Kohn, Robert Alan Kohn, Sonja Kohn.(arc) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Nathan D. Adler to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Erwin Kohn, Robert Alan Kohn, Sonja Kohn.(arc) |
| 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) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (pgu) |
| CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Create association to 1:11-cv-03605-JSR. Notice of Assignment to follow. (pgu) |
| Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman is so designated. (pgu) |
| Mailed notice re: Case Referred as Possibly Related/Similar, Case Designated ECF, #2 Memorandum of Law in Support,,, #3 Declaration in Support,,, #1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL)., Mail Letter of Notification to Bankruptcy Court, 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: 10-5411A (BRL).) with the U.S.D.C. - S.D.N.Y. and the assignment of S.D.N.Y. Case Number: 12-cv-2639. (pgu) |
|
Filing 17
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: The reference of the Adversary Proceedings is withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court, in part, to this Court for the limited purpose of deciding the following issues (the "Withdrawn Stem Issues") set forth within this Order. The Trustee and SIPC are deemed to have raised, in response to all pending motions for withdrawal of the reference based on the Withdrawn Stem Issues, all arguments previously raised by either or both of them in opposition to all such motions granted by the Prior Stem Withdrawal Rulings, and such objections or arguments are deemed to be overruled, solely with respect to the Withdrawn Stem Issues, for the reasons stated in the Prior Stem 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. The Stem Withdrawal Defendants shall file one consolidated opening brief, not to exceed forty (40) pages, addressing the Withdrawn Stem Issues on or before May 3, 2012. The Trustee and SIPC shall each file an opposition brief, not to exceed forty (40) pages each, addressing the Withdrawn Stem Issues on or before May 25, 2012. The Stem Withdrawal Defendants shall file one consolidated reply brief, not to exceed twenty (20) pages, on or before June 11, 2012. The Court will hold oral argument concerning the Withdrawn Stem Issues on June 18, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. (the "Hearing Date"). On or before June 11, 2012, the Stem Withdrawal 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 the Adversary Proceedings listed on Exhibits A and/or C, 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 Stem Issues) raised in the Adversary Proceedings by the Stem Withdrawal Defendants, all of which are preserved, as further set in this Order. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 4/13/2012) (js)
|
|
Filing 13
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: The reference of the Adversary Proceedings is withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court, in part, to this Court for the limited purpose of deciding the following issues (the "Withdrawn Stem Issues") set forth within this Order. The Trustee and SIPC are deemed to have raised, in response to all pending motions for withdrawal of the reference based on the Withdrawn Stem Issues, all arguments previously raised by either or both of them in opposition to all such motions granted by the Prior Stem Withdrawal Rulings, and such objections or arguments are deemed to be overruled, solely with respect to the Withdrawn Stem Issues, for the reasons stated in the Prior Stem 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. The Stem Withdrawal Defendants shall file one consolidated opening brief, not to exceed forty (40) pages, addressing the Withdrawn Stem Issues on or before May 3, 2012. The Trustee and SIPC shall each file an opposition brief, not to exceed forty (40) pages each, addressing the Withdrawn Stem Issues on or before May 25, 2012. The Stem Withdrawal Defendants shall file one consolidated reply brief, not to exceed twenty (20) pages, on or before June 11, 2012. The Court will hold oral argument concerning the Withdrawn Stem Issues on June 18, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. (the "Hearing Date"). On or before June 11, 2012, the Stem Withdrawal 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 the Adversary Proceedings listed on Exhibits A and/or C, 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 Stem Issues) raised in the Adversary Proceedings by the Stem Withdrawal Defendants, all of which are preserved, as further set in this Order. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 4/13/2012) ***Docketed pursuant to Order docketed in case no. 12mc115 on 6/7/2013.***(tro)
|
| Filing 3 DECLARATION of Price O. Gielen in Support re: #1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).. Document filed by 20:20 Medici AG, Shlomo Amselem, Bank Medici AG (Gibraltar), Erko, Inc., Eurovaleur, Inc., Moishe Hartstein, Rina Hartstein, Herald Asset Management Ltd., Herald Consult Ltd., Infovaleur, Inc., Erwin Kohn, Robert Alan Kohn, Sonja Kohn, Mordechai Landau, Medici Cayman Island Ltd., Medici S.R.L., Medicifinanz Consulting GmbH, Tecno Development & Research LTD., Windsor IBC, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(bkar) |
| Filing 2 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).. Document filed by 20:20 Medici AG, Shlomo Amselem, Bank Medici AG (Gibraltar), Netty Blau, Erko, Inc., Eurovaleur, Inc., Moishe Hartstein, Rina Hartstein, Herald Asset Management Ltd., Herald Consult Ltd., Infovaleur, Inc., Erwin Kohn, Robert Alan Kohn, Sonja Kohn, Mordechai Landau, Medici Cayman Island Ltd., Medici S.R.L., Medicifinanz Consulting GmbH, Tecno Development & Research LTD., Windsor IBC, Inc.. (bkar) |
| Filing 1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5411A, 08-1789 (BRL).Document filed by 20:20 Medici AG, Medici Cayman Island Ltd., Eurovaleur, Inc., Erwin Kohn, Tecno Development & Research LTD., Mordechai Landau, Shlomo Amselem, Medici S.R.L., Medicifinanz Consulting GmbH, Herald Asset Management Ltd., Robert Alan Kohn, Rina Hartstein, Infovaleur, Inc., Bank Medici AG (Gibraltar), Herald Consult Ltd., Netty Blau, Moishe Hartstein, Windsor IBC, Inc., Erko, Inc., Sonja Kohn.(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.
