Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al
Unopposed MOTION for leave to file under seal Claimant Information for Quest Energy Management Group, Inc.'s Claims Process by Burton W. Wiand. (Perez, Jared)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
Case No.: 8:09-cv-87-T-26TBM
SCOOP CAPITAL, LLC; and
SCOOP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
SCOOP REAL ESTATE, L.P.;
VALHALLA INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P.;
VALHALLA MANAGEMENT, INC.;
VICTORY IRA FUND, LTD.;
VICTORY FUND, LTD.;
VIKING IRA FUND, LLC;
VIKING FUND, LLC; and
VIKING MANAGEMENT, LLC,
RECEIVER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL CLAIMANT INFORMATION
Burton W. Wiand, as Receiver (the “Receiver”) for Quest Energy Management
Group, Inc. (“Quest”), moves the Court pursuant to Local Rule 1.09 for an order permitting
the Receiver to file under seal very limited information relating to the identity of claimants
who have submitted claims as part of the claims process established in the Quest
Receivership (the “Claimants”).
Shortly, the Receiver will file a motion seeking an order approving: his
determinations and priority of claims, the pooling of receivership assets and liabilities, a plan
of distribution, and an objection procedure (the “Claims Determination Motion”).
In the Claims Determination Motion, the Receiver will reference and attach
exhibits identifying submitted claims by claim number rather than by Claimant name. The
Receiver assigned each claim a number and intends to send each Claimant a letter providing
the Claimant’s claim identifying number. The Receiver proposes to file with the Court under
seal a separate cross-reference list with the names of each Claimant and the corresponding
claim number (the “Cross-Reference List”) so the Court is able to match the Claimants to
the claim determinations proposed by the Receiver in the Claims Determination Motion.
The purpose of filing this information under seal is to protect the privacy of
Quest’s investors and the financial repercussions they experienced from Quest’s scheme.
The Receiver believes the preservation of investor privacy, especially with respect to
financial information, is a sufficient reason to depart from the general policy of public court
As previously noted, the filing of the Cross-Reference List is necessary to
provide the Court with the ability to match Claimants to the claim numbers used by the
Receiver in the exhibits to the Claims Determination Motion. The Receiver is unaware of
any other means of providing the Court with this information and of protecting the privacy of
Sealing the Cross-Reference List will neither prejudice any party’s interests
nor cause any harm to any third parties.
Pursuant to Local Rule 1.09(c), the Receiver requests that the Cross-Reference
List be sealed indefinitely until further order of the Court. This will alleviate the need to
employ Receivership resources to move to renew the seal and will prevent inadvertent
release of sensitive information.
The Court has previously approved this process in connection with the claims
process for Arthur Nadel’s investment funds. See Docs. 673, 674.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The Receiver respectfully submits that the narrow request to file under seal a list of
the names of the Claimants with corresponding claim numbers used in the Claims
Determination Motion to protect the privacy of the Claimants outweighs the public’s right of
access to this information. The right of access to judicial records pursuant to common law is
well established but is not absolute. Microlumen, Inc. v. Allegrati, 2007 WL 1247068 (M.D.
Fla. Apr. 30, 2007).
The presumption of public access must be balanced against any
competing interest. United States v. Maali, 2004 WL 2656879 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2004).
“[I]n contrast to the compelling justification required for closure of criminal trials, the trial
court has broad latitude where only the common-law right of access to court records is
implicated.” Id. (quoting United States v. Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. Fla.
Here, the public has no overriding interest in learning the identities of the victims of
Quest’s scheme or the details relating to their investments.
This Court has previously
approved this procedure in this case relating to the claims process the Receiver conducted for
investments in the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Arthur Nadel. Doc. 674, endorsed order
granting motion to seal documents; see also S.E.C. v. HKW Trading LLC, Case No. 8:05-cv-
01076-T-24TBM, order granting unopposed motion to file claimant information under seal
(M.D. Fla.) (Doc. 159).
WHEREFORE, the Receiver respectfully requests that this Court enter an order
permitting the filing under seal of the Cross-Reference List identifying the Claimant name(s)
that correspond to the assigned claim number on exhibits to the Claims Determination
LOCAL RULE 3.01(G) CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL
The undersigned counsel for the Receiver has conferred with counsel for the
Commission and is authorized to represent to the Court that the Commission has no objection
to the relief sought herein.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 28, 2018, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system.
s/Jared J. Perez
Jared J. Perez, FBN 0085192
Jordan D. Maglich, FBN 0086106
WIAND GUERRA KING P.L.
5505 West Gray Street
Tampa, FL 33609
Tel. (813) 347-5100
Fax (813) 347-5198
Attorneys for the Receiver, Burton W. Wiand
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?