Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al

Filing 968

ORDER ATTACHED directing World Opportunity Fund, L.P. to respond to 966 Motion to Clarify Certain Settlement Orders on or before 2/19/2013. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 2/15/2013. (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
The Court has for its consideration the Receiver’s Motion to Clarify Certain Settlement
Orders filed yesterday at docket 966. After reviewing the motion, it is clear to the Court that the
Receiver filed the motion in reaction to a hearing that is scheduled on February 22, 2013, in the
arbitration proceeding involving World Opportunity Fund, L.P., in which that entity has filed a
Motion to Enforce Judgment Credit. In view of the impact that the granting of the motion by the
arbitrators would have on the Receivership Estate and the defrauded investors, the Court will
schedule an expedited hearing on the motion to clarify on Thursday, February 21, 2013, at 9:00

a.m., in Courtroom 15B, United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida.
World Opportunity Fund, L.P., shall file an expedited response to the motion on or before
February 19, 2013.1 The Court will send a copy of this order by facsimile and electronic mail to
counsel for World Opportunity Fund, L.P.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on February 15, 2013.

s/Richard A. Lazzara
RICHARD A. LAZZARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Counsel of Record

1

The Court was advised by one of its law clerks yesterday afternoon that an attorney for
World Fund Opportunity, L.P., Mr. Mark Rogers, called and requested fourteen days to respond
to the motion to clarify. That request is denied in light of the importance of the Court to resolve
the merits of the motion prior to the hearing before the arbitrators.

-2-