Securities and Exchange Commission v. Total Wealth Management, Inc. et al
Filing
137
ORDER granting Receiver's 124 Motion for Order Establishing Summary Claims Procedures, Setting Class Bar Date, and Approving Claim Form. Court grants the Receiver's motion in its entirety. Receiver's use of summary procedures for the determination of claims against the estate of the Receivership Entities, as detailed in the Motion, is authorized and approved. Receiver's proposed means of noticing prospective claimants via his website, email, mail and by publication of a not ice of the claims process in the San Diego Union-Tribune within 10 days of this order is authorized and approved. A claims bar date of 60 days after the date of the Receiver's publication of notice of the claims process is hereby established. The notice and instructions, and claim form, attached to the Motion as Exhibit A are approved. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 2/27/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
11
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
TOTAL WEALTH
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Case No. 15-cv-00226-BAS-DHB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR ESTABLISHING
SUMMARY CLAIMS
PROCEDURES, SETTING
CLAIMS BAR DATE, AND
APPROVING PROPOSED
CLAIM FORM
[ECF No. 124]
17
18
19
20
Presently before the Court is Receiver Thomas A. Seaman’s (“the Receiver”)
21
motion for an order (1) establishing summary procedures for the determination of
22
claims against the Receivership Entities; (2) setting a claims bar date for the
23
submission of claims; and (3) approving the Receiver’s proposed Claim Form for the
24
submission of claims. (“Motion” (ECF No. 124).) Plaintiff Securities and Exchange
25
Commission filed a response supporting the Receiver’s Motion.1 (ECF No. 129.) For
26
27
The Court notes that a receiver appointed in a related state case filed a reply to Receiver’s
Motion on December 19, 2016. (ECF No. 128.)
–1–
1
28
15cv226
1
2
the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Motion.
DISCUSSION
3
“[A] district court’s power to supervise an equity receivership and to determine
4
the appropriate action to be taken in the administration of the receivership is
5
extremely broad.” SEC v. Capital Consultants, LLC, 397 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir.
6
2005) (quoting SEC v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 1986)). This broad
7
power includes the discretion to use summary procedures to supervise and administer
8
the claims process. See Hardy, 803 F.2d at 1040 (“[T]he use of summary proceedings
9
to determine appropriate relief in equity receiverships, as opposed to plenary
10
proceedings under the Federal Rules, is within the jurisdictional authority of a district
11
court.”) (citations omitted); United States v. Arizona Fuels Corp., 739 F.2d 455, 458
12
(9th Cir. 1984) (“[T]he traditional rule is that summary proceedings are appropriate
13
and proper to protect equity receivership assets.”) (citations omitted). Summary
14
procedures promote judicial efficiency and help maximize recovery by reducing the
15
time necessary to settle disputes, decreasing litigation costs, and preventing further
16
dissipation of receivership assets. SEC v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1566 (11th Cir.
17
1992). Such procedures satisfy due process so long as investors and creditors of the
18
receivership entities are given adequate notice and a full and fair opportunity to be
19
heard. Id. at 1567; Hardy, 803 F.2d at 1040.
20
Here, the Receiver’s proposed summary procedures provide a reasonable and
21
practicable means of noticing, reviewing, and processing claims. The proposed Claim
22
Form clearly and concisely explains what investors and creditors must do to properly
23
submit their claims. (See Motion, Exh. A.) The publication of notice to potential
24
claimants includes both an online and print component, with the print component
25
focused in the geographic area with the largest concentration of Receivership Entity
26
investors and the location of the Entities’ principal place of business. (Motion 6:20–
27
7:5.) The Receiver’s proposed deadline for submitting claims—60 days after the
28
publication of notice—provides a sufficient amount of time for claimants to receive
–2–
15cv226
1
and complete the Claim Form. Finally, the procedures allow investors and creditors
2
who dispute the Receiver’s recommendations to present disputed claims to the Court
3
with a full and fair opportunity to be heard. (Id. 4:9–20.) Overall, the Court finds that
4
these procedures provide fair notice of the claims process, and serve the interest of
5
the investors and creditors. The summary procedures are approved.
6
7
8
9
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Receiver’s motion in its
entirety and ORDERS the following:
1.
The Receiver’s use of summary procedures for the determination of
10
claims against the estate of the Receivership Entities, as detailed in the Motion, is
11
authorized and approved;
12
2.
The Receiver’s proposed means of noticing prospective claimants,
13
including via his website, email, mail, and by publication of a notice of the claims
14
process in the San Diego Union-Tribune within ten (10) days of this order, and as
15
detailed further in the Motion, is authorized and approved;
16
3.
A claims bar date of sixty (60) days after the date of the Receiver’s
17
publication of notice of the claims process, as referenced in Paragraph 2, above, is
18
hereby established; and
19
20
4.
The notice and instructions, and claim form, attached to the Motion
collectively as Exhibit A are approved.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
DATED: February 27, 2017
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–
15cv226
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?