DE 1945 – Order Resetting Final Approval Hearing on Motion to Approve Settlement with Eckert Seamans…
DE 1942 – PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/29/2024. Attorney Appearance(s): Marshall Dore Louis, Robert George Keefe, James Miller Kaplan, Amie Riggle Berlin, Timothy Andrew Kolaya, Ryan K. Stumphauzer, Court Reporter: Ilona Lupowitz, 305-523-5737 / [email protected]. (gp)…
DE 1941 – PAPERLESS ORDER Setting Telephonic Status Conference for tomorrow, Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 12:00 P.M. As discussed at the Hearing held on May 23, 2024, [ECF No. 1935], the Court intends to hold an evidentiary hearing to address the Chehebar Investors’ purported security interests as raised in their Response [1889] to the Receiver’s Motion (1) to Approve Proposed Treatment of Claims and (2) for Determination of Ponzi Scheme, [1843]. The Court necessitates a brief call to discuss the proposed sequencing of this evidentiary hearing with counsel for the Receiver, the SEC, and the Chehebar Investors. The parties are instructed to call +1 305-990-2559 by no later than 11:55 A.M. The phone conference ID is 223 027 792#. The Court requires that the parties appear via a landline (i.e., not a cellular phone or a speaker phone) if possible for clarity. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 5/28/2024. (mei)…
DE 1940 – PAPERLESS ORDER on [1843] Motion (1) to Approve Proposed Treatment of Claims and (2) for Determination of Ponzi Scheme (“Motion”). Pursuant to S.D. Fla. CM/ECF Administrative Procedure 3(I)(6), the Receiver, as well as any party with opposition to the Motion, shall submit a proposed order on the Motion on or before June 3, 2024 via email in Word format to [email protected]. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 5/24/2024. (mei)…
DE 1937 – PAPERLESS ORDER denying [1842] Chehebar Investors’ Motion to Intervene (“Motion”). As discussed at the Hearing held on the Motion on May 23, 2024, [ECF No. 1935], the Court finds that the Chehebar Investors may adequately protect their interest by litigating the issue of their purported priority lien interests within the context of the Receiver’s claims adjudication process as overseen and reviewed by the Court. See Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989) (requiring a party to show “he is so situated that disposition of the action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair his ability to protect that interest” prior to intervening in a case). Indeed, while the Court is cognizant of the availability of summary proceedings in the disposition of this Receivership, the Court intends to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the purported security interest at issue here–as is proper under Eleventh Circuit precedent. See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Torchia, 922 F.3d 1307, 1312 (11th Cir. 2019); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 848 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 2017). Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 5/23/2024. (mei)…
DE 1936 – PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II: Zoom Status Conference held on 5/23/2024. Attorney Appearance(s): Counsel of record, Court Reporter: Ilona Lupowitz, 305-523-5737 / [email protected]. (gp)…