Irving H. Picard v. Reliance International Research LLC
Plaintiff: Irving H. Picard
Defendant: M&B Capital Advisers Gestion SGIIC, S.A., UBS (Luxembourg) S.A., Reliance International Research LLC, Landmark Investment Fund Ireland, Maitre Alain Rukavina and Paul Laplume, UBS AG, UBS Third Party Management Company S.A., Reliance Management (BVI) Limited, Reliance Management (Gibraltar) Limited, UBS Fund Services (Luxembourg) S.A., M&B Capital Advisers Sociedad De Valores, S.A., M&B Capital Advisers Holding, S.A. and Luxembourg Investment Fund and Luxembourg Investment Fund U.S. Equity Plus
In Re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
Case Number: 1:2012cv02641
Filed: April 6, 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. § 157
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 28, 2014. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 28, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 14 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)
April 15, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 13 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)
July 12, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 12 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)
June 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 11 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)
May 16, 2012 Opinion or Order 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)
May 15, 2012 Opinion or Order 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)
April 24, 2012 Filing 8 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (pgu)
April 24, 2012 CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Create association to 1:11-cv-03605-JSR. Notice of Assignment to follow. (pgu)
April 24, 2012 Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman is so designated. (pgu)
April 17, 2012 Filing 7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Nicholas J. Cremona on behalf of Irving H. Picard (Cremona, Nicholas)
April 16, 2012 Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Oren J. Warshavsky on behalf of Irving H. Picard (Warshavsky, Oren)
April 10, 2012 Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Mandy Deroche on behalf of Reliance International Research LLC (Deroche, Mandy)
April 9, 2012 Filing 4 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Reliance International Research LLC.(Deroche, Mandy)
April 9, 2012 Mailed notice re: #1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5311A, 08-1789 (BRL)., #3 Declaration in Support, #4 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement, Mail Letter of Notification to Bankruptcy Court, #2 Memorandum of Law in Support, Case Referred as Possibly Related/Similar, Case Designated ECF to the attorney(s) of record. (pgu)
April 9, 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: 10-5331A (BRL).) with the U.S.D.C. - S.D.N.Y. and the assignment of S.D.N.Y. Case Number: 12-cv-2641. (pgu)
April 6, 2012 CASE REFERRED TO Judge Jed S. Rakoff as possibly related to 11-cv-3605. (bkgw)
April 6, 2012 Case Designated ECF. (bkgw)
April 5, 2012 Filing 3 DECLARATION of Mark J. Hyland in Support re: #1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5311A, 08-1789 (BRL).. Document filed by Reliance International Research LLC. (bkgw)
April 5, 2012 Filing 2 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5311A, 08-1789 (BRL).. Document filed by Reliance International Research LLC. (bkgw)
April 5, 2012 Filing 1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE BANKRUPTCY REFERENCE. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 10-5311A, 08-1789 (BRL).Document filed by Reliance International Research LLC.(bkgw)

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. Reliance International Research LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: M&B Capital Advisers Gestion SGIIC, S.A.
Represented By: Richard Beryl Levin
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 ]
Defendant: UBS (Luxembourg) S.A.
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 ]
Defendant: Reliance International Research LLC
Represented By: Mandy DeRoche
Represented By: Mark Joseph Hyland
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 ]
Defendant: Landmark Investment Fund Ireland
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 ]
Defendant: Maitre Alain Rukavina and Paul Laplume
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 ]
Defendant: UBS AG
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 ]
Defendant: UBS Third Party Management Company S.A.
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 ]
Defendant: Reliance Management (BVI) Limited
Represented By: Brendan Michael Scott
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 ]
Defendant: Reliance Management (Gibraltar) Limited
Represented By: Brendan Michael Scott
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 ]
Defendant: UBS Fund Services (Luxembourg) S.A.
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 ]
Defendant: M&B Capital Advisers Sociedad De Valores, S.A.
Represented By: Richard Beryl Levin
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 ]
Defendant: M&B Capital Advisers Holding, S.A.
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 ]
Defendant: Luxembourg Investment Fund and Luxembourg Investment Fund U.S. Equity Plus
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: Nicholas J. Cremona
Represented By: Oren J. Warshavsky
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 ]
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 ]

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?