Filed: Feb. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2011
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PETITION OF RECEIVER FOR APPROVAL OF THE INTERCREDITOR AGREEMENT AMONG SETTLEMENT CLASS AND STATE COURT PLAINTIFFS ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. Larry L. Bertsch, Receiver (the "Receiver") petitioned this Court for Approval of the Intercreditor Agreement, among Settlement Class and State Court Plaintiffs ("Petition") on November 24, 2010, Dkt. 275. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), oppositions to the Petition were due on or before December 13, 2010. No party in interest filed a
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PETITION OF RECEIVER FOR APPROVAL OF THE INTERCREDITOR AGREEMENT AMONG SETTLEMENT CLASS AND STATE COURT PLAINTIFFS ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. Larry L. Bertsch, Receiver (the "Receiver") petitioned this Court for Approval of the Intercreditor Agreement, among Settlement Class and State Court Plaintiffs ("Petition") on November 24, 2010, Dkt. 275. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), oppositions to the Petition were due on or before December 13, 2010. No party in interest filed an..
More
ORDER GRANTING PETITION OF RECEIVER FOR APPROVAL OF THE INTERCREDITOR AGREEMENT AMONG SETTLEMENT CLASS AND STATE COURT PLAINTIFFS
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
Larry L. Bertsch, Receiver (the "Receiver") petitioned this Court for Approval of the Intercreditor Agreement, among Settlement Class and State Court Plaintiffs ("Petition") on November 24, 2010, Dkt. 275. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), oppositions to the Petition were due on or before December 13, 2010. No party in interest filed an opposition. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), failure to file an opposition is a consent to the granting of the Petition. The Petition is ripe for adjudication.
IT IS ORDERED that,
1. The Petition of Receiver for Approval of the Intercreditor Agreement among Settlement Class and State Court Plaintiffs is granted in its entirety.
2. The Intercreditor Agreement, attached to the Petition, is approved in its entirety.
3. The following parties are bound by the Intercreditor Agreement;
a) Southwest Exchange, Inc., Qualified Exchange Services, Inc., Capital Reef Management Corp. and all other entities which were the subject of a Receivership (the Receivership Entities") in In Re: Receivership of Southwest Exchange, Inc. and Consolidated Litigation, Case No. 07-A-535439-B in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Clark (the "State Court Action").
b) All plaintiffs in the State Court Action, who are not members of the Settlement Class (the "State Court Plaintiffs").
c) The Settlement Class as defined in In Re: Internal Revenue Service § 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1878, Case No. 2:07-cv-01394-RCJ-(LRL), pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Federal Class Action").
4. The State Court Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are hereby ordered to exercise their best efforts at all times to;
a) Cooperate with each other and the Receiver in their collection efforts on the State Court Judgment and the Class Action Judgment.
b) Coordinate the use of post judgment remedies so that both the State Court Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class may take the same advantage of the selected remedy at the same time, whether by recordation in a foreign jurisdiction, execution, judgment debtor examination, appointment of a receiver, or otherwise, and neither gains an advantage by way of time or priority over the other.
c) Deposit all collections and recoveries derived from any source from post judgment remedies or similar collection efforts into the Southwest Exchange Qualified Settlement Fund.
5. The Court retains jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the Intercreditor Agreement.
6. The Court retains jurisdiction over disputes involving the Intercreditor Agreement.
