Irving H. Picard v. Cathay Life Insurance Co. LTD. et al
| Irving H. Picard |
| Cathay Life Insurance Co. LTD. and Cathay United Bank LTD. |
| Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC |
| 1:2012cv03489 |
| May 2, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Jed S. Rakoff |
| Withdrawal |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 157 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
27
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 recove ry 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 procee dings 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
18
OPINION AND ORDER: the Court concludes that claims against the general Madoff Securities estate do not constitute "value" within the meaning of section 548(c) to the extent that they would be used to withhold fraudulent transfers owing to t he customer property estate under SIPA. Furthermore, the Court finds that a straight netting method - subtracting total withdrawals from total deposits of principal is the appropriate way to calculate not only net equity but also a defendant's f raudulent-transfer liability; that is, the Court rejects defendants' assertion that deposits of principal in the reach-back period should be netted against withdrawals in the same period in calculating their fraudulent-transfer liability. Finall y, the Court finds that pre reach-back-period inter-account transfers of amounts exceeding principal in the account of the sender continue to be fictitious profits, not principal, in the account of the recipient, and therefore do not constitute antec edent debt for the recipient of the funds. Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss on all of the above grounds is denied. Except to the extent provided in other orders, the Court directs that the following adversary proceedings be returned t o the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order: (1) those cases listed in Exhibit A of item number 107 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 "antecedent debt" consolidated briefing. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 10/15/2013) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:12-mc-00115-JSR, 1:12-cv-03489-JSR(rsh)
|
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.
