United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Holzhueter, Loren et al

Filing 383

ORDER regarding 9/5/2017 telephone status conference. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 9/5/17. (jat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ISC, INC., d/b/a INSURANCE SERVICE CENTER, and
THE ESTATE OF LOREN W. HOLZHUETER,

15-cv-45-jdp

Defendants,
and
HONEFI, LLC, ARLENE HOLZHUETER, and
AARON HOLZHUETER,
Relief Defendants.
On September 5, 2017, a telephone status conference was held before District Judge
James Peterson. Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission appeared by
Jennifer Peltz and Timothy Leiman; receiver Michael Polsky appeared on his own behalf and
by Joseph Peltz; interested party AVID Acquisitions LLC appeared by Mary Turke; and the
state court plaintiffs appeared by Patrick Schott.
At the conference, the court and the parties discussed the best way to resolve the dispute
between the receiver and AVID regarding the scope of a provision in the Asset Purchase
Agreement (APA) that relates to so-called “straddling policies.” In its August 30 order, the
court concluded that it could not resolve the dispute as a matter of law on the current record,
so it scheduled a telephone conference to determine the next steps. Dkt. 382 at 9-14.

The court and the parties agreed to bifurcate the contract interpretation question and
the damages question to preserve resources. As to the contract interpretation question, the
parties and the court agreed to the following process.
First, the receiver and AVID may have 60 days to conduct discovery on the question of
the parties’ intent in adopting the relevant provision of the APA. Discovery is to be limited to
what is needed to resolve the parties’ dispute about contract interpretation. Second, after
discovery is complete, the parties will confer on the question whether the court should resolve
the dispute in a motion for summary judgment or after an evidentiary hearing. Third, two
weeks after discovery is complete, the parties will submit a joint proposal with their answer to
that question, explaining why they believe the court should take their preferred approach.
If the parties choose a summary judgment motion, they will include a proposed briefing
schedule in their proposal. If they choose an evidentiary hearing, they will include three
proposed dates for the hearing and an estimate for the length of the hearing. (If the estimate
is longer than one day, the parties should explain why that much time is needed.) If the parties
cannot agree on a method for resolving the dispute, the parties should set out their competing
proposals.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that receiver Michael Polsky and interested party AVID Acquisitions
LLC shall abide by the following schedule in resolving their dispute over the interpretation of
the Asset Purchase Agreement:


no later than November 6, 2017, the parties will complete discovery on the
issues relevant to the dispute;

2



no later than November 20, 2017, the parties will submit a joint proposal (or if
they cannot agree, separate proposals) regarding their preferred method for
resolving the dispute, as described in this order.

Entered September 5, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3