DOCSLIB.ORG

April 28, 2020 Twenty-Third Interim Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
April 28, 2020 Twenty-Third Interim Report 08-01789-smb Doc 19502 Filed 04/28/20 Entered 04/28/20 13:08:36 Main Document Pg 1 of 66 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Irving H. Picard Email: [email protected] David J. Sheehan Email: [email protected] Seanna R. Brown Email: [email protected] Heather R. Wlodek Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and the Chapter 7 Estate of Bernard L. Madoff UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Applicant, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (SMB) v. SIPA Liquidation BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT (Substantively Consolidated) SECURITIES LLC, Defendant. In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF, Debtor. TRUSTEE’S TWENTY-THIRD INTERIM REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2019 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2020 4812-5216-8375.2 08-01789-smb Doc 19502 Filed 04/28/20 Entered 04/28/20 13:08:36 Main Document TABLEPg OF 2 CONTENTSof 66 Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................3 III. FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE ESTATE ..................................................................3 IV. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION ...........................................................................................4 A. Claims Processing ....................................................................................................4 i. Customer Claims ..........................................................................................4 ii. General Creditor Claims ..............................................................................5 iii. The Trustee Has Kept Claimants Informed Of The Status Of The Claims Process .............................................................................................5 iv. The Hardship Program .................................................................................6 B. Objections To Claims Determinations .....................................................................7 C. Settlements Of Customer Claims Disputes ..............................................................8 V. PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SIPA .............................8 A. Net Equity Dispute ...................................................................................................8 B. Time-Based Damages ............................................................................................10 C. “Customer” Definition ...........................................................................................11 D. Inter-Account Transfers .........................................................................................12 E. Profit-Withdrawal Issue .........................................................................................14 VI. LITIGATION .....................................................................................................................15 A. The District Court—Motions to Dismiss and Related Appeals .............................16 B. Good Faith Actions ................................................................................................16 i. Resolution of Good Faith Avoidance Actions ...........................................16 ii. Summary Judgment Motions .....................................................................16 (a) South Ferry/Lowrey Motions .........................................................16 iii. Trial-Related Motion Practice ....................................................................18 (a) Nelson Actions ...............................................................................18 (b) Michael Mann Action ....................................................................21 (c) Edward A. Zraick Action ...............................................................23 (d) James Greiff Action .......................................................................23 (e) Chaitman LLP Actions ..................................................................24 C. Subsequent Transfer Actions .................................................................................25 D. Actions Relating to BLMIS Feeder Funds.............................................................27 i. Extraterritoriality ........................................................................................27 ii. Limited Discovery Motion .........................................................................28 iii. Picard v. ABN AMRO ...............................................................................29 i 4812-5216-8375.2 08-01789-smb Doc 19502 Filed 04/28/20 Entered 04/28/20 13:08:36 Main Document TABLEPg OF 3 CONTENTSof 66 (continued) Page iv. Picard v. ABN AMRO (Ireland) Ltd. (Fortis) ...........................................32 v. Picard v. Citibank .......................................................................................33 vi. The HSBC Action ......................................................................................35 vii. The Luxalpha Action .................................................................................37 viii. Picard v. Kingate ........................................................................................38 ix. Picard v. Fairfield Greenwich ....................................................................39 x. Picard v. Rye/Tremont ...............................................................................43 xi. Picard v. Square One ..................................................................................45 E. Other Bad Faith Actions ........................................................................................46 i. Picard v. Avellino & Bienes ......................................................................46 ii. Picard v. Andrew H. Madoff and Picard v. Mark D. Madoff ....................47 iii. Picard v. Cohmad Sec. Corp. .....................................................................48 iv. Picard v. Magnify Inc. ...............................................................................49 v. Picard v. Stanley Shapiro ...........................................................................52 vi. Picard v. Legacy.........................................................................................53 VII. INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AND LITIGATION ..........................................55 A. Austria ....................................................................................................................56 B. Bermuda .................................................................................................................56 C. BVI .........................................................................................................................56 D. Cayman Islands ......................................................................................................56 E. England ..................................................................................................................57 F. France .....................................................................................................................57 G. Ireland ....................................................................................................................57 H. Israel .......................................................................................................................57 I. Liechtenstein ..........................................................................................................57 J. Switzerland and Luxembourg ................................................................................57 VIII. RECOVERIES AND CONTINGENCIES ........................................................................58 A. Recoveries Accomplished During Prior Report Periods .......................................58 B. Recoveries Accomplished During This Report Period ..........................................58 IX. THE TRUSTEE’S ALLOCATION OF FUNDS AND DISTRIBUTIONS TO CUSTOMERS ...................................................................................................................59 A. The Customer Fund................................................................................................59 B. The General Estate .................................................................................................60 X. FEE APPLICATIONS AND RELATED APPEALS ........................................................61 A. Objections to Prior Fee Applications .....................................................................61 - ii – 4812-5216-8375.2 08-01789-smb Doc 19502 Filed 04/28/20 Entered 04/28/20 13:08:36 Main Document TABLEPg OF 4 CONTENTSof 66 (continued) Page B. Thirty-First Fee Application ..................................................................................61 C. Thirty-Second Fee Application ..............................................................................62 XI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................62 - iii – 4812-5216-8375.2 08-01789-smb Doc 19502 Filed 04/28/20 Entered 04/28/20 13:08:36 Main Document Pg 5 of 66 TO THE HONORABLE STUART M. BERNSTEIN UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE: Irving H.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supp Deutch Declaration
    20-11684-dsj Doc 220 Filed 04/22/21 Entered 04/22/21 09:55:32 Main Document Pg 1 of 15 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) OLD OB, LLC1 ) Case No. 20-11684 (SMB) ) Debtor. ) ) SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PAUL H. DEUTCH IN SUPPORT OF DEBTOR’S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION OF OMNI AGENT SOLUTIONS AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT EFFECTIVE AS OF AUGUST 24, 2020 I, Paul H. Deutch, under penalty of perjury, declare as follows: 1. I am the Executive Vice President of Omni Agent Solutions, Inc. (“Omni”). Except as otherwise noted, I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. I submit this supplemental declaration (the “Supplemental Declaration”) on behalf of Omni in support of the application 2 [Docket No. 204] (the “Section 327 Application”), of the Debtor for an order appointing Omni as administrative agent for the Debtor effective as of August 24, 2020 filed in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the “Bankruptcy Case”). Except as otherwise indicated herein, I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called as a witness, would testify competently thereto. 2. The facts set forth below are based either upon my personal knowledge, discussions with other employees of Omni, or review of the client/matter records of Omni by me or by other employees of Omni. 1 The last four digits of the Debtor’s federal tax identification number is 3434.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK ------X
    20-11684-smb Doc 119 Filed 10/26/20 Entered 10/26/20 09:58:35 Main Document Pg 1 of 16 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------x In re : Chapter 11 OCCASION BRANDS, LLC, : Case No. 20-11684 (SMB) Debtor. : ---------------------------------------------x NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT OF CONSUMER PRIVACY OMBUDSMAN WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON, the United States Trustee for the Southern District of New York, pursuant to the order entered October 26, 2020 (ECF No. 118 ) directing the appointment under 11 U.S.C. § 332 of a consumer privacy ombudsman, hereby appoints Alan Chapell as consumer privacy ombudsman. The offices of Alan Chapell are at 692 Greenwich Street, Suite 5, New York, NY 10014. This notice is accompanied by a verified statement of Alan Chapell setting forth his connections with the debtor, creditors, any party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States Trustee, and any person employed in the Office of the United States Trustee. Dated: New York, New York October 26, 2020 WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE By: /s/ Susan A. Arbeit SUSAN A. ARBEIT Trial Attorney U.S. Federal Office Building 201 Varick St., Room 1006 New York, New York 10014 (212) 510-0500 20-11684-smb Doc 119 Filed 10/26/20 Entered 10/26/20 09:58:35 Main Document Pg 2 of 16 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------x In re : Chapter 11 OCCASION BRANDS, LLC, : Case No. 20-11684 (SMB) Debtor. : ---------------------------------------------x VERIFIED STATEMENT OF ALAN CHAPELL, CONSUMER PRIVACY OMBUDSMAN Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 6004(g) (2), I, Alan Chapell, hereby state and declare as follows: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2D
    Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2d. ed.) OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEES: Where They Are in Place, How They Operate, and What to Consider in Establishing and Managing Them The Governance Institute, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver (IAALS), and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution have revised the June 2010 first edition of this guide, and will continue to issue revisions periodically. It provides United States senators, other federal legislators, and their staffs with information about creating committees to screen potential judicial and law enforcement position nominees; provides them and committee members with information about committee operations; and provides others interested in federal judicial selection with information about an often- overlooked aspect of the process. It is not a “best practices” manual, in part because relatively little is known about how such committees work and even less about what seems to work best. The most current version of the guide is available at: www.du.edu/legalinstitute and www.brookings.edu/experts/wheelerr.aspx This guide was authored principally by: Russell Wheeler, president of the Governance Institute and a Visiting Fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies program. He has served on the IAALS Board of Advisors since its creation in 2006. Rebecca Love Kourlis, executive director of IAALS. She served on Senator Ken Salazar’s screening committee and co-chaired the committee that Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet appointed to screen candidates for two District of Colorado vacancies. (Malia Reddick, director of judicial programs for the Institute, assists with ongoing revisions.) The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) is a national, independent research center dedicated to continuous improvement of the process and culture of the civil justice system.
    [Show full text]
  • March 18, 2020 Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge
    Revised: March 18, 2020 EMERGENCY INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge Chambers Email: [email protected] Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, these Emergency Individual Rules and Practices apply to all matters before Judge Nathan (whether criminal or civil and whether involving a pro se party or all counseled parties), and they are a supplement to Judge Nathan’s standard Individual Rules and Practices. If there is a conflict between these Rules and Judge Nathan’s standard Individual Rules and Practices, these Rules control. 1. No Paper Submissions Absent Undue Hardship A. No papers, including courtesy hard copies of any filing or document, may be submitted to Chambers. All documents must be filed on ECF or, if permitted or required under the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices, emailed to [email protected]. B. In the event that a party or counsel is unable to submit a document electronically — either by ECF or email — the document may be mailed to the Court. To the maximum extent possible, however, this means of delivery should be avoided, as delivery of mail to the Court is likely to be delayed. 2. Conferences and Proceedings A. In Civil Cases. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, all conferences and proceedings in civil cases will be held by telephone. In some cases, the Court may direct one of the parties to set up a conference line. In all other cases, the parties should call into the Court’s dedicated conference line at (888) 363-4749, and enter Access Code 919-6964, followed by the pound (#) key.
    [Show full text]
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)
    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:20-Cv-10617-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 25
    Case 1:20-cv-10617-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MARIA ALEJANDRA CELIMEN SAVINO, JULIO CESAR MEDEIROS NEVES, and all those similarly situated, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS HODGSON, Bristol County Sheriff Civil Action No. in his Official Capacity; STEVEN J. SOUZA, Superintendent Bristol County House of Corrections in his Official Capacity; TODD LYONS, Boston Field Office, Acting Director, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Immigrations and Customs Enforcement in his CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Official Capacity; 2241 AND COMPLAINT FOR CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, Department DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE of Homeland Security, in his Official Capacity; RELIEF MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his Official Capacity; and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondents-Defendants. _______________________________________ INTRODUCTION 1. This case presents a request for immediate relief on behalf of a putative class of highly vulnerable Petitioner-Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) – civil immigration detainees held by Respondents-Defendants (“Defendants”) at the Bristol County House of Corrections and C. Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention Center (“Carreiro”) in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts (hereinafter collectively “Bristol County Immigration Detention Facilities”) – who are at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19, the lethal virus that is sweeping the globe and that feeds on precisely the unsafe, congregate conditions in which Plaintiffs are being held. 1 Case 1:20-cv-10617-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 25 2. The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 infection – and death – has produced an unprecedented global pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021-02-01 Litigation Rules Update Summaries
    Litigation Rules Update Summaries Update Summary February 01, 2021: The following new Rules Set was created: SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge John P. Cronan The following Rules Sets were renamed: No Rules Sets were renamed. The following Rules Sets were removed: No Rules Sets were removed. The following Rules Sets were reactivated: No Rules Sets were reactivated. The following Rules Sets were revised: Federal Rules of Bankruptcy USDC ‐‐ M.D. Alabama CA ‐‐ Amador County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Fresno County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Inyo County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Monterey County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Nevada County Superior Court CA ‐‐ San Benito County Superior Court CA ‐‐ San Joaquin County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Santa Clara County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Santa Cruz County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Shasta County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Solano County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Stanislaus County Superior Courts CA ‐‐ Ventura County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Yolo County Superior Court CA ‐‐ Fresno County Superior Court ‐ Family CA ‐‐ Santa Clara County Superior Court ‐ Family CA ‐‐ Ventura County Superior Court ‐ Family DC ‐‐ Rules of Civil Procedure USBC ‐‐ M.D. Florida USBC ‐‐ N.D. Illinois USBC ‐‐ District of Massachusetts USBC ‐‐ E.D. Michigan MI ‐‐ 46th Circuit Court (Otsego, Kalkaska, and Crawford) MO ‐‐ Thirty‐First Judicial Circuit (Greene) NE ‐‐ Uniform County Court Rules SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Ronnie Abrams SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Richard M. Berman SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge P. Kevin Castel SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Kenneth M. Karas SDNY Standing Order ‐‐ Judge Edgardo Ramos USBC ‐‐ S.D. New York NY Appellate Division, Rules of Practice NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, First Department NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, Second Department NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, Third Department NY ‐‐ Appellate Division, Fourth Department USDC ‐‐ District of North Dakota USDC ‐‐ N.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Roundtable Discussion February 13, 2013 Table of Contents
    Judicial Roundtable Discussion February 13, 2013 Table of Contents 1) Biography of Judge Abrams. 2) Biography of Judge Nathan. 3) Biography of Judge Carter. 4) Biography of Judge Sullivan. 5) Biography of Judge Furman. 6) Biography of Judge Oetken. 7) Biography of Panel members and Judge Sullivan. 8) Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases for Judge Abrams. 9) Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases for Judge Carter. 10) Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases for Judge Nathan. 11) Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases for Judge Oetken. 12) Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases for Judge Furman. 13) Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases for Judge Sullivan. 14) “On Book-Tour Circuit, Sotomayor Sees a New Niche for a Justice,” The New York Times, February 3, 2013. 15) “Judge’s book gives an insider’s view of life on the bench,” The Villager, July 19, 2012. 16) “Judge Medina's 100th Birthday: Time for Tributes,” The New York Times, February 16, 1988. 17) Shirley S. Abrahamson, Susan M. Fieber, and Gabrielle Lessard, Judges on Judging: A Bibliography , 24 St. Mary's L.J. 995 (1992). 18) “Social Media Discovery and ESI in Motion Practice, “ New York Law Journal, January 8, 2013. 19) “ Who Can Get Your Tweets, And Can You Object?” New York Law Journal, July 3, 2012. Biography of Judge Abrams Biography of Judge Nathan Biography of Judge Carter Biography of Judge Sullivan Biography of Judge Furman Biography of Judge Oetken Biography of Panel members and Judge Sullivan Michael Almonte is an associate in the New York office of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, LLP.
    [Show full text]
  • X Marquis Collier, John Doe I, John Doe II, ¦ and John Doe III, Individually and on ¦ Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ¦ ¦ Petitioners, ¦ V
    Case 1:20-cv-02183 Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 1 of 45 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------ X Marquis Collier, John Doe I, John Doe II, ¦ and John Doe III, individually and on ¦ behalf of all others similarly situated, ¦ ¦ Petitioners, ¦ v. ¦ ¦ RALPH SOZIO, United States Marshal, ¦ 20 Civ. 2183 Southern District of New York; BRYAN ¦ T. MULLEE, Acting United States ¦ Marshal, Eastern District of New York; ¦ THE GEO GROUP, INC.; WILLIAM ¦ ZERILLO, Facility Administrator, Queens ¦ Detention Facility, ¦ ¦ Respondents. ¦ ------------------------------------------------------ X CLASS ACTION PETITION SEEKING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Ann-Elizabeth Ostrager Alana M. Longmoore Hannah Lonky Fackler SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 Counsel for Petitioners and Proposed Class Members May 13, 2020 Case 1:20-cv-02183 Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 2 of 45 PageID #: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................1 PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................................8 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES .............................................................9 BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Law Program Fall 2018-Spring 2019 Course Offerings*
    CLINICAL LAW PROGRAM FALL 2018-SPRING 2019 COURSE OFFERINGS* JACOB D. FUCHSBERG CLINICAL LAW CENTER TH 245 SULLIVAN STREET, 5 FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10012 212-998-6430 *AS OF APRIL 2, 2018 CONSULT WEBSITE FOR UPDATES: http://www.law.nyu.edu/academics/clinics/ Table of Contents Overview ...............................................................................................................................................................3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................3 Guidelines for Clinical Courses .........................................................................................................................3 Application Instructions .........................................................................................................................................4 Timeline for JD Application Process .................................................................................................................4 Submit Applications Online ...............................................................................................................................4 Maximum Number of Clinic Applications ...........................................................................................................4 Pre- or Co-Requisites ........................................................................................................................................4 Interviews ..........................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • C2F0ANNVD1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK 2 ---X 2 3 UNIT
    C2F0ANNVD1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 2 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 3 4 v. 10 CR 007 4 5 SANDY ANNABI and 6 ZEHY JEREIS, 7 7 Defendant. 8 8 ------------------------------x 9 9 New York, N.Y. 10 February 15, 2012 10 9:30 A.M. 11 11 12 12 13 Before: 13 14 HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON, 14 15 District Judge 15 16 16 APPEARANCES 17 17 PREET BHARARA 18 United States Attorney for the 18 Southern District of New York 19 JASON P.W. HALPERIN 19 PERRY A. CARBONE 20 Assistant United States Attorneys 20 21 WILLIAM I. ARONWALD 21 Attorney for Defendant ANNABI 22 22 ANTHONY J. SIANO 23 Attorney for Defendant JEREIS 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 2 C2F0ANNVD1 1 (Case called; In open court) 2 THE COURT: Hello to my current favorite reporters. I 3 don't want anyone in the press to think that I don't love them, 4 people covering the current story are always my current 5 favorite reporters. 6 Now this, by the way, is Judge Allison Nathan, one of 7 the newest members of our court. Judge Nathan and a couple of 8 members of her staff are going to judge school today, they're 9 going to watch, okay, and see how we do it, administratively. 10 Okay, I have a letter from Mr. Aronwald. Thank you 11 very much. I have a letter from Mr. Siano, asking for an 12 adjournment. 13 The adjournment is denied.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. _______ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ DEVON ARCHER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Respondent. _________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit _________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI _________ MATTHEW L. SCHWARTZ BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor New York, New York 10001 (212) 446-2300 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner i QUESTION PRESENTED The district court vacated Petitioner’s convictions for securities fraud and conspiracy and ordered a new trial after concluding that the evidence weighed so heavily against the verdict that there was a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice and that an innocent person may have been convicted. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that the district court lacked discre- tion to weigh the evidence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a), unless there was eviden- tiary or instructional error or “the evidence was pa- tently incredible or defied physical realities.” The question presented is: Does Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a) af- ford district courts discretion to reweigh the evidence when evaluating a new trial motion, as eleven other federal courts of appeals have held, or does the rule require that a court “must defer to the jury’s resolu- tion of conflicting evidence,” unless there was eviden- tiary or instructional error or “the evidence was pa- tently incredible or defied physical realities,” as the Second Circuit held in this case? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioner is Devon Archer, who was defendant-ap- pellee below.
    [Show full text]