SUMMARY ORDER

GARY L. SHARPE, District Judge.

Pending is the fourth motion of William J. Brown, as Receiver, (hereinafter "the Receiver"), for an order disallowing certain claims and applying a preferential payment offset, (hereinafter "the Fourth Motion"). (Dkt. No. 1009.) Also pending is the Receiver's fifth motion for an order applying a preferential payment offset, (hereinafter "the Fifth Motion"). (Dkt. No. 1025.) For the reasons below, the motions are granted.

The preferential payment offset that the Receiver seeks with the Fourth Motion can be summarized as follows.1

(Dkt. No. 1010 at 1.) The Fourth Motion also seeks to disallow certain paper claims filed by these Preferred Investors—claims that are "exact duplicates of Receiver-granted claims," "vary in amount from Receivergranted claims," and/or have "no basis for the Receiver to make a distribution." (Id. at 2.) The Receiver's rationale for the disallowance is that otherwise "the Preferred Investors who filed such paper claims would receive additional distributions to which they are not entitled[,] to the detriment of [other] investors." (Id.)

The Fisher Claimants2 were the only Preferred Investors to respond to the Fourth Motion. (Dkt. No. 1019.) In sum, the Fisher Claimants' opposition to the Fourth Motion is that "the Receiver has failed to provide admissible evidence in support of his arguments." (Id. at 1.) That is, the Fisher Claimants argue that the Receiver "declined to provide any of the underlying documents relied on to support his claims relating to any alleged Preferential Payments" and "failed to provide any detail as to how he reached []his conclusion" regarding the "No Liability Claims" that the Receiver seeks to disallow. (Id. at 1, 2.)3 Without this evidence, the Fisher Claimants argue, they are denied due process because they do not have an opportunity to properly object. (Id. at 12-13.) The Fisher Claimants conclude that the Fourth Motion should be denied "until the Receiver provides evidence in admissible form . . . that w[as] relied on in determining that Preferential Payments were made and identifies the specific reasoning the `No Liability Claim[s]' should be disallowed." (Id. at 2-3 (emphasis added).)

In his reply, the Receiver did just that. (Dkt. No. 1020.) The Receiver "submits that the records of the Preferential Payments, as reflected on updated [exhibits] attached to the [r]eply, are accurate, and the Preferential Payments made to the Fisher Claimants are evidenced by the documents submitted with the [Receiver's] [d]eclaration." (Id. at 3.) As for the No Liability Claims, the Receiver argues that they are the claims "[for] which there is no record in the books and records of [McGinn and Smith]," and "the Receiver cannot produce records that he does not have." (Id. at 10.)

The Receiver's reply seems to have comprehensively addressed the Fisher Claimants' concerns regarding the accuracy of the Receiver's calculations.4 Indeed, the court assumes that the Receiver's reply satisfied the Fisher Claimants because they did not raise any issues after receiving it.5 Moreover, the Fisher Claimants that are the subject of the Receiver's Fifth Motion, which was filed over a month after the Receiver's reply, did not respond to the Fifth Motion. The Fisher Claimants asked and received, and thus the basis for their opposition to the Fourth Motion ceased to exist. Therefore the court grants the Fourth Motion.

With the Fifth Motion, the Receiver seeks an additional preferential payment offset as to two of the Fischer Claimants: One City Center Associates and Burton Fischer. (Dkt. No. 1025, Attach. 5 at 1.) As noted, no response was filed. After a review of its contents,6 the court grants the Fifth Motion.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that, upon the Fourth Motion of William J. Brown, as Receiver, for an order (a) disallowing Preferred Investor paper claims and (b) applying Preferential Payment offset (Dkt. No. 1009); and notice of the Fourth Motion having been given to the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of Preferred Investor listed on Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3, B-1, and B-2 to the Fourth Motion (Dkt. No. 1009, Attachs. 1-5), by first class mail, and all parties who have filed a Notice of Appearance in this action by ECF, and all creditors of the McGinn, Smith entities and other parties in interest via the Receiver's website, which notice is deemed good and sufficient notice; and the court having deemed that sufficient cause exists, the motion is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that each of the paper claims listed on Exhibits A-1 through A-3 to the Fourth Motion (Dkt. No. 1009, Attachs. 1-3) is disallowed; and the rights of the Receiver to object on any other basis to the claims of all investors or claimants is expressly preserved; and it is further

ORDERED that the application of the Preferential Payment offset to reduce the distributions to Preferred Investors is approved as set forth on the updated Exhibits B-1 and B-2 to the Reply in support of the Fourth Motion (Dkt. No. 1020, Attachs. 1-2); and it is further

ORDERED that, upon the Fifth Motion of William J. Brown, as Receiver, for an order applying Preferential Payment offset to certain Preferred Investor claims (Dkt. No. 1025); and notice of the Fifth Motion having been given to the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of One City Center Associates (OCC) and Burton Fisher by first class mail, and all parties who have filed a Notice of Appearance in this action by ECF, and all creditors of the McGinn, Smith entities and other parties in interest via the Receiver's website, which notice is deemed good and sufficient notice; and the court having deemed that sufficient cause exists, the motion is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the application of the Preferential Payment offset to reduce the distributions to OCC and Fisher is approved as set forth on Exhibits A and B to the Fifth Motion (Dkt. No. 1025, Attach. 2), and the rights of the Receiver to object on any other basis to the claims of all investors or claimants, including OCC and Fisher, are expressly preserved; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Summary Order to the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.