Irving H. Picard v. Saul B. Katz et al

Filing 175

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS: It is hereby ORDERED, that the defendants identified on Exhibit A are dismissed from the Adversary Proceeding (the "Dismissed Defendants"); and it is further ORDERED, that nothing in this Order shall affect the Trustee's right to appeal the Dismissal Order, the Certification Order, and/or this Order with respect to all claims and all Defendants including the Dismissed Defendants. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 3/12/2012) (lmb)

UNITED STATES DTSTR(CT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IRVTNG H. PICARD, Trustee for the Liquidation of
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LtC,

] 1 Civ. 03605 (.TSR) (HBP)
Adv. Pro. 1"0. 10-05287 (BRL)

Plaintiff.
v.

SAUL B. Kl\TZ, ct aI.,
Defendants.

~ PR~ ORDER DISM}SSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
By Opinien and Order dated September 27,2011 C'DismissaJ Order"), the Court

dismissed in the above-captioned Adversary Proceeding ("Adver"ary Proceeding") all Counts
except Counts 1 and 11 assclted by Plaintiff Irving H. Picard ("Trustee"), as trustee for L'f-)e
liquidation of the business of Bcrnard L. ~1adoff Investment Securities LLC C'BL:vIIS") LInder
the Securities Investor Protection Act, 15 U.S.c. §§ 78aaa, et seq., and the substantively

consolidated estate of Bernard L. Madoff individually. Thereafter, the Trustee filed a motion
("Certification Motion") seeking certification of rulings in the Dismissal Order fer interlocutory
appeal under 28 U.S.c. § 1292(b), or to have the Court enter a fi11<11 judgment as to such

dismissed claims so that they could be immediately appealed. By Opin.ion and Order dated
January 17, 20 J 2 CCertification Order"), the Court denied the Certification Motion, but
reinstated Count 9 insofar a<.. it seeks to avoid:;ubsequent trao5fers under Ban kruptcy Code
§ 550(a) in accord2.nce with the Dismi5saJ Order.

By Orner dated

~Iarch

5,2012. the Court ordered the parties to submit a stipulation

specifying which partiesshou.ld be di"mis~ed as a consequence of tbe Cou.rt's l1llings in the
Dismis~al

and Certification Orders. The parties submitted to thE:: Court the attached Exhibit A,

which identifte5 those defendants Lhat Lhe parties stipulate ~hould be dismissed as a result of the

Coun's Dismissal and CeJ1ification Orders because they d.id not receive any initial or subsequent
transfers within the two years prior to December 11,2008 and/or did not file a claim against the
BLMIS estate.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the defendants identified on ExhibiL A are dismis5ed from the
Adversary Proceeding (the "Dismissed Defendants"); and it is further
ORDERED. that nothing in thi" Order shall affect the Trustee's right to appeallhe
Dismissal Order, [he Certification Order, and/or this Order with reSDect to all claims and all
'.
Defendant" including the Dismissed Defendants.

Dated: New York, Nc\v York
March 12,2012

JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.l

2

EXHIBIT A

1.

157 J.E.S. LLC

2. Air Sterling LLC

3. BAS Aircraft LLC
4. Bon-Mick. Inc.
5. Brooklyn Ba:;eball Company LLC
6. Charle.:. 15 Associates
7. Charles IS LLC
8. Charle~ Sterling LLC
9. Coney Island Baseball Holding Company LLC
10. Kimberly Wachtlel'
11. M.ichael Schreier
12. Realty A~sociates ~1ac1off IJ

13. Ruskin Gardcn ApaItments LLC
14. SEE Holdings I

t5. SEE Holdings II

16. Sterling American Property TIT LP
17. Sterling American Property IV LP
18. Sterling Brunsv,'ick Corporation
19. Sterling Equities Investor':.
20. Sterling Jet Ltd.
21. Sterling Jet IT Ltd.
22. Sterling PathoGenesis Company
23. Sterling Third A$~ociales
24. Valley Harbor Associates
25. CD.S. Corp.
26. Mets One
27. Sterling Mets Associates
28. Sterling Mcts Associates II
29. Mets Partners. Inc.
30. Sterling Heritage
31. Minor 1
32. Minor 2

300205457

3