Filed: Oct. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON RECEIVER'S OBJECTION TO LATE-FILED CLAIM GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . This matter came before the Court on the Receiver's Objection to Late-Filed Claim (the "Objection") filed on September 12, 2018 by A. Cotten Wright, the Court appointed receiver in this case (the "Receiver"). (Doc. No. 216). It appears that notice of the Objection was proper. The Objection was filed in response to a claim submitted on behalf of an investor (the "Claimant") alleging a claim against Relie
Summary: ORDER ON RECEIVER'S OBJECTION TO LATE-FILED CLAIM GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . This matter came before the Court on the Receiver's Objection to Late-Filed Claim (the "Objection") filed on September 12, 2018 by A. Cotten Wright, the Court appointed receiver in this case (the "Receiver"). (Doc. No. 216). It appears that notice of the Objection was proper. The Objection was filed in response to a claim submitted on behalf of an investor (the "Claimant") alleging a claim against Relief..
More
ORDER ON RECEIVER'S OBJECTION TO LATE-FILED CLAIM
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.
This matter came before the Court on the Receiver's Objection to Late-Filed Claim (the "Objection") filed on September 12, 2018 by A. Cotten Wright, the Court appointed receiver in this case (the "Receiver"). (Doc. No. 216). It appears that notice of the Objection was proper.
The Objection was filed in response to a claim submitted on behalf of an investor (the "Claimant") alleging a claim against Relief Defendant, DCG PMG, LLC, in the amount of $300,000.00 (the "Claim"). The Claim was submitted to the Receiver in an email from the Claimant's attorney on September 5, 2018, nearly a year after the September 16, 2017 claims deadline. The Receiver designated the Claim as Claim No. 166.
In the Objection, the Receiver noted that she had provided email service to the Claimant throughout the course of the receivership case at a yahoo.com address, and that none of those emails have been returned as undeliverable. The Claimant did not respond to the Objection.
The Court, having reviewed the Objection and the record in this case, has determined that the Objection should be approved.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the late-filed Claim 166 is DISALLOWED. SO ORDERED.
