J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc. v. Mantello et al
ORDER approving the terms of the final settlement agreement in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 8/27/2013. (amt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
J.P. JEANNERET ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Civil Action No.
BOB MANTELLO, et al.,
HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP
One Park Place
300 South State St.
Syracuse , NY 13202-2078
BRIAN E. WHITELEY, ESQ.
JOHN D. COOK, ESQ.
GABRIEL M. NUGENT, ESQ.
JOHN M. NICHOLS, ESQ.
BLITMAN & KING LLP
16 West Main St., Suite 207
The Powers Bldg.
Rochester, NY 14614
JULES L. SMITH, ESQ.
MICHAEL R. DAUM, ESQ.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036
MYRON D. RUMELD, ESQ.
ANTHONY S. CACACE, ESQ.
CHAMBERLAIN, D’AMANDA LAW FIRM
2 State St.
1600 Crossroads Bldg.
Rochester, NY 14614
MICHAEL T. HARREN, ESQ.
DECARLO, CONNOR & SHANLEY
101 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
BRIAN F. QUINN, ESQ.
DANIEL M. SHANLEY, ESQ.
DENNIS J. MURPHY, ESQ.
CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
99 Tulip Ave., Suite 404
Floral Park, NY 11001-1974
DANIEL T. CAMPBELL, ESQ.
BISCEGLIE & DEMARCO, LLC
365 Rifle Camp Rd.
Woodland Park, NJ 07424
MARK I. SILBERBLATT, ESQ.
DAVID E. PEEBLES
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Plaintiff J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc. (“JPJA”), the manager of the
Income-Plus Investment Fund (“Income-Plus”), a tax exempt group trust,
commenced this action seeking a declaration from the court, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2201, approving a method for distribution for the remaining
assets of Income-Plus.1 The defendants named in JPJA’s complaint are
the trustees of thirty-four pension and employee benefit plans that have
This matter is before me on consent of all parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). Dkt. No. 43.
invested in Income-Plus. The need for court intervention to address the
method of distribution was necessitated by the discovery of a massive
Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff, and the fact that, on or
about December 11, 2008, when it was publically announced that Madoff
had been arrested and was being prosecuted for his conduct, 39.08
percent of the Income-Plus assets were invested either directly or
indirectly with Madoff’s company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
As a result of lengthy negotiations, the parties entered into a
tentative agreement providing for a method of distributing the remaining
assets of Income-Plus.3 That understanding was memorialized in a
settlement agreement, which was submitted to the court on September 7,
2012, on joint motion, for preliminary approval.4 The motion was granted,
One court has described the Madoff Ponzi scheme as a type of fraud
whereby “customers of [BLMIS] . . . were led to believe that their monies were being
invested in profitable securities transactions, [but] were paid their profits from new
monies received from customers, without any actual securities trades taking place.”
Picard v. Katz, 462 B.R. 447, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Following discovery of the Madoff fraud, the Income-Plus assets invested
in BLMIS were written down to zero by JPJA, and on April 30, 2009, JPJA distributed
forty percent of the remaining assets to investors.
All but a small number of the defendant Income-Plus participants signed
onto the joint motion.
and the parties were directed to provide written submissions concerning
the settlement within ninety days addressing the fairness of its terms.
On March 1, 2013, following an exhaustive review of the tentative
settlement by independent fiduciaries retained by the interested parties,
defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion to approve the
final settlement agreement. Defendants’ motion for court approval of the
settlement, however, was opposed by JPJA in a submission filed on
March 25, 2013.
On April 17, 2013, a hearing was conducted to address the
defendants’ motion for approval of the final settlement agreement.
Following that hearing, I issued a decision, dated May 28, 2013, finding
that, in light of plaintiff’s opposition, a final settlement had not been
A settlement conference was subsequently conducted by the court
on July 10, 2013, to further address the matter. That conference, which
was attended by counsel for the plaintiffs and a majority of the defendants,
resulted in a tentative settlement, the terms of which were placed upon the
record. The settlement was subsequently reduced to writing, and
submitted to the court on August 2, 2013, for final approval. Following
receipt of that submission, I issued a text order directing that any
objections to the proposed settlement be filed on or before August 16,
2013. That date has passed, and no objections have been received by
Based upon my involvement in this matter, including having presided
over the fairness hearing conducted on April 17, 2013, and the settlement
conference subsequently held on July 10, 2013, I have significant
familiarity with the matter. Based upon my knowledge of the case and
review of the final settlement agreement, and having determined that the
terms of that agreement are fair and reasonable, it is therefore hereby
ORDERED as follows:
The terms of the final settlement agreement in this matter,
submitted by the parties to the court on August 2, 2013, are hereby
This action is dismissed in accordance with the terms of the
parties’ settlement agreement.
The court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to monitor the
effectuation of the settlement agreement and to resolve any disputes that
may arise thereunder and will assume full authority, based upon the
parties’ consent, to monitor and resolve any disputes that may arise under
the terms of this agreement.
August 27, 2013
Syracuse, New York
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?