Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al

Filing 776

ORDER ATTACHED granting #675 Motion to Approve Determination and Priority of Claims, etc., as provided in the attached order. Ruling reserved on [719 & 740] Motion for Relief from Injunction and Motion regarding filing Proofs of Claim. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 3/2/2012. (CCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO: 8:09-cv-87-T-26TBM

ARTHUR NADEL; SCOOP CAPITAL, LLC;
and SCOOP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants,
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,
Relief Defendants.
/

ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of the parties’ written submissions and oral
arguments, and for the reasons announced on the record at the hearing held in this case
this day, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1)

Except as set forth later in this order, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that the Receiver’s Motion to (1) Approve Determination and Priority of Claims, (2) Pool

Receivership Assets and Liabilities, (3) Approve Plan of Distribution, and (4) Establish
Objection Procedure (Dkt. 675) is granted.
2)

The Court, for the reasons stated on the record, and in view of the United

States’ Memorandum on Jurisdiction filed at docket 773, as well as the other submissions
relating to the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction, determines that it has in rem jurisdiction
as to all the properties in the Receivership Estate.
3)

The Receiver’s determination of claims and claim priorities as set forth in

the motion and in Exhibits B - J attached to the motion is fair and equitable and is
approved.
4)

For the reasons discussed in the motion, the Receiver is authorized to

consolidate all Receivership Entities’ (as the term is defined in the motion) assets and
liabilities for all purposes, including for payment of administrative costs, for receipt of
third-party recoveries, and for making distribution to holders of allowed claims.
5)

For the reasons discussed in the motion, and under the circumstances of

this Receivership, the Net Investment Method as set forth in the motion and its exhibits is
the appropriate method for calculating allowed amounts for investors’ claims.
6)

The plan of distribution as set forth in Section IV of the motion is logical,

fair, and reasonable and is approved.
7)

The Proposed Objection Procedure as set forth in Section V of the motion

for objections to the plan of distribution and the Receiver’s claim determinations and

-2-

claim priorities is logical, fair, and reasonable and is approved, and any and all objections
to claim determinations, claim priorities, or the plan of distribution shall be presented to
the Receiver in accordance with the Proposed Objection Procedure as set forth in Section
V of the motion. After any unresolved objections are filed with the Court by the
Receiver, the Court shall determine whether a hearing is necessary and set the date and
time of any such hearing; and
8)

To bring finality to these matters and to allow the Receiver to proceed with

distributions of Receivership assets, any and all further claims against Receivership
Entities, Receivership property, the Receivership estate, or the Receiver by any Claimant
taxing authority, or any other public or private person or entity and any and all
proceedings or other effects to enforce or otherwise collect on any lien, debt, or other
asserted interest in or against Receivership Entities, Receivership property, or the
Receivership estate are hereby barred and enjoined absent further order from this Court.
9)

As articulated by the Court at the hearing held in this case today, the

granting of this motion does not in anyway affect any claims or their priority asserted by
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and its related affiliates, as well as TRSTE, Inc., which the
Court will consider at a later date after it resolves the motion to disqualify the Receiver
and his law firm filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., at docket 766. The Court, in that
regard, specifically reserves ruling on the issues raised in (a) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s
Objection and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Receiver’s Unopposed Motion to

-3-

(1) Approve Determination and Priority of Claims, (2) Pool Receivership Assets and
Liabilities, (3) Approve Plan Distribution, and (4) Establish Objection Procedure filed at
docket 689, (b) TRSTE, Inc.’s Objection and Opposition to Receiver’s Motion to
Approve Determination and Priority of Claims and Supporting Memorandum of Law
filed at docket 690, (c) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion for Relief from Injunction or,
in the Alternative, to Compel the Receiver to Abandon the Property Located at 841
South Main Street, Graham, North Carolina filed at docket 719, and (d) Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A.’s Motion for Determination that the Filing of Proofs of Claim herein is not
Necessary to Preserve Secured Creditors’ Valid State Law Security Interests in, and
Claims Against, Collateral in the Receiver’s Possession or, in the Alternative, for Leave
to File Late Claims Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) filed at docket
740.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on March 2, 2012.

s/Richard A. Lazzara
RICHARD A. LAZZARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Counsel of Record

-4-