United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 2251

ORDER denying Motion to Keep Accounts Open 2183 . Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/27/2022. (Canevari, Dorothy)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. IFTIKAR AHMED, Defendant, and Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA) IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI AHMED May 27, 2022 2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUNITY TRUST; DIYA HOLDINGS LLC; DIYA REAL HOLDINGS, LLC; I.I. 1, a minor child, by and through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI AHMED, his parents; I.I. 2, a minor child, by and through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI AHMED, his parents; and I.I. 3, a minor child, by and through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI AHMED, his parents, Relief Defendants. RULING ON MOTION TO KEEP ACCOUNTS OPEN Relief Defendants request that the Court order the Receiver “to keep various accounts open that hold the assets that the Receiver has liquidated in Phase I” so that “if the appellate courts find for the Relief Defendants, or Defendant, . . . a seamless transfer back of funds can occur to the original account.” (Relief Defs.’ Mot. to Keep Accounts Open [Doc. # 2183] at 12.) Defendant Iftikar Ahmed joins Relief Defendants’ motion “as it pertains to his assets.” (Def.’s Joinder to Relief Defs.’ Mot. [Doc. # 2183] at 1.) The Receiver objects to Relief Defendants’ motion as premature, (Receiver’s Obj. to Relief Defs.’ Mot. (“Receiver’s Obj.”) [Doc. # 2205] at 2-3), while Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission does not respond. The Receiver represents that he will leave funds in the accounts of the Receivership Estate to reserve money for taxes, Receivership Estate expenses, or other ordered disbursements. (Receiver’s Obj. at 3.) As such, “the Receiver expects that the Accounts that the Relief Defendants seek to keep open by way of the Motion will remain open and funded . . . until such time as this Court directs the Receiver to make certain tax payments at the earliest.” (Id.) Relief Defendants counter that their motion is not premature because they do not know when the funds will be transferred and “it takes time to adjudicate various motions/requests.” (Relief Defs.’ Reply [Doc. # 2215] at 1-2.) But because there is no risk that Relief Defendants’ accounts will be closed without an order from the Court, (Receiver’s Obj. at 3), the Motion to Keep Accounts Open [Doc. # 2183] is DENIED without prejudice to renew. While Relief Defendants request that the Court hold the motion in abeyance “until a point before any transfers,” Relief Defendants may instead renew their motion with applicable briefing to reflect any change of circumstances. IT IS SO ORDERED. ____________________/s/_________________________ Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 27th day of May 2022. 2

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?