BTIG, LLC v. Floyd Associates, Inc. et al
JUDGMENT by Judge Dale S. Fischer. (SEE JUDGMENT FOR SPECIFICS) (bp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. CV 17-0921 DSF (SSx)
FLOYD ASSOCIATES, INC.; JACQUES
TIZABI; BHP INTERNATIONAL
MARKETS LIMITED; SCOTT C.
DOREY; MARC WADE; MARK E.
VALENTINE; JAY MARTIN CHAPLER;
and DAVID HERSH CONNORS,
Pursuant to the Court’s June 12, 2017 Order granting Petitioner BTIG LLC’s
(BTIG) petition to confirm an arbitral award issued on December 27, 2016 in the
FINRA arbitration BTIG LLC v. Floyd Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-00937
(Award) and denying Respondent Scott C. Dorey’s (Dorey) petition to vacate the
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
That the Award is confirmed in favor of BTIG as to Floyd Associates,
Inc., Jacques Tizabi, BHP International Markets Limited, Dorey, Mark E.
Valentine, and David Hersh Connors.
In conformity with the Award, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,
ADJUDGED and DECREED that Floyd Associates, Inc., Jacques Tizabi,
BHP International Markets Limited, Dorey, Mark E. Valentine, and
David Hersh Connors, being jointly and severally liable to BTIG, shall
pay to BTIG:
a. $19,209,773.00 (USD);
b. $629,585.42 (USD) in post-award, pre-judgment interest under
California law for the period from December 27, 2016 to June 12,
c. 1.21% interest per annum on $19,839,358.42 (USD), as prescribed
by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, from the date of this order until the date of
full payment; and
That the Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter to amend this
Judgment if necessary to account for additional monies actually
recovered by BTIG to avoid its double recovery.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that Judgment in favor of Petitioner BTIG and
against Respondents Floyd Associates, Inc., Jacques Tizabi, BHP International
Markets Limited, Scott C. Dorey, Mark E. Valentine, and David Hersh Connors shall
be entered accordingly.
Hon. Dale S. Fischer
United States District Judge
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?