BURTON R. LIFLAND, Bankruptcy Judge.
Before the Court are the motions (the "Remand Motions") filed by certain defendants (the "Movants") in 42 of the 209 above-referenced administratively consolidated adversary proceedings (the "Actions")
With upward of 209 actions pending and almost $6 billion in play, which is the best ballpark to host the games? After extensive briefing and oral argument, the Court finds the Movants to be incorrect in their broad assertion that the Actions, seeking within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States to recover multi-billions in potential foreign estate assets, "have nothing to do with the federal bankruptcy laws and no real connection to any bankruptcy case." HSBC Mot., p. 1.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below and at oral argument, the Remand Motions are DENIED.
The Debtors were established for the purpose of allowing mainly non-U.S. persons and certain tax-exempt United States entities to invest with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS"). While the Debtors were operating, investors were able to redeem their shares at will, receiving what was believed at the time to be their proportional interest in the assets of the Debtors. On December 11, 2008, however, it was revealed that Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") had for decades perpetrated a Ponzi scheme through the investment advisory side of BLMIS, which is currently in liquidation before this Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 78aaa et seq., the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA"). Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. BLMIS (In re BLMIS), Case No. 08-01789 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2008).
Subsequent to the revelation of the BLMIS fraud, redemption payments ceased, and certain of the Debtors' shareholders and creditors commenced insolvency proceedings on behalf of the Debtors (the "BVI Proceedings") in the British Virgin Islands (the "BVI") before the Commercial Division of the Eastern Caribbean High Court of Justice, British Virgin Islands (the "BVI Court"). The BVI Proceedings were commenced on separate
The Foreign Representatives filed the Debtors' chapter 15 petitions seeking recognition of the BVI Proceedings before this Court on June 14, 2010 (the "Petition Date"). The Debtors' chapter 15 cases were consolidated for administrative purposes by order dated June 17, 2010. Id. at Dkt. No. 11. On July 22, 2010 (the "Recognition Date"), after a hearing held on the matter, this Court entered an Order (the "Recognition Order")
As the Debtors are the largest of the so-called "feeder funds" to have invested with Madoff through BLMIS, the Debtors' investors are not only creditors to this proceeding, but also victims of the massive Ponzi scheme. In order to marshal assets for fair and efficient distribution among these creditors and victims, in accordance with BVI insolvency law, the Foreign Representatives are "entrust[ed] [with] the administration or realization of all or part of the debtor's assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(5); see also In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. at 67 ("[G]ranting the requested relief under section 1521 of the Code fosters the `fair and efficient administration of [the Debtors'] cross-border insolvencies' by ensuring that only one unbiased party — the Liquidators — quarterback the Debtors' causes of action `in the interests of all creditors and other interested entities, including the debtor.'") (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 1501(a)(3)). Recognition of the BVI Proceedings as foreign main proceedings under chapter 15, among other things, grants the Foreign Representatives "the capacity to sue and be sued in a court of the United States" and the ability to "apply directly to a court in the United States for appropriate relief in that court." 11 U.S.C. § 1509(b) ("Right of Direct Access"). Moreover, as liquidators appointed by order of the BVI Court, the Foreign Representatives "have custody and control of all the assets" of the Debtors and the powers to, inter alia, "commence, continue, discontinue or defend any action or other legal proceedings in the name and on behalf of [the Debtors] in the British Virgin Islands or elsewhere" and "all other things incidental to the exercise of" such powers. BVI Insolvency Order,
In furtherance of these powers and duties, the Foreign Representatives have identified and asserted causes of action against a number of parties on behalf of the Debtors. In April 2010, with the BVI Court's approval, the Foreign Representatives began commencing actions in the United States against direct or indirect subscribers for the return of redemption payments (the "Redemption Payments") withdrawn from Sentry's BLMIS account (the "Redeemer Actions"). Following this Court's entry of the Recognition Order, the Foreign Representatives removed those Redeemer Actions that had been asserted in the State Court to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1452, and continued filing any post-recognition Redeemer Actions before this Court. The instant Remand Motions were then filed in 42 of the 56 Redeemer Actions removed from the State Court. See Redeemer Actions Statistics Letter, p. 2.
The original complaints filed in the Redeemer Actions assert claims titled money had and received, unjust enrichment, mistaken payment and constructive trust (the "Common Law Claims"). These claims are equitable and restitutionary in nature, seeking Redemption Payments, including "fictitious profits," paid to the Debtors' shareholders based on a miscalculated net asset value that was falsely inflated as a result, ultimately, of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The legal theories asserted in the Common Law Claims are identical to those asserted in certain other claims commenced in the BVI Proceedings, including against some overlapping defendants, and seem to differ only in the timing of the particular transfers at issue. See, e.g., Supp. Krys Decl., ¶ 20 & Ex. G
Subsequent to the filing of the Remand Motions, with BVI Court approval by order entered December 9, 2010, the Foreign Representatives amended 34 of the 42 Actions
While the number of Redeemer Actions and the amounts sought have continually increased, evading any lasting calculation, at the time of this decision there are 209 adversary proceedings pending, seeking in the aggregate over $5.79 billion, including fictitious profits in excess of $690 million. See Redeemer Actions Statistics Letter, p. 1. For administrative purposes, after a hearing held on November 9, 2010, these Redeemer Actions, and "[a]ny other actions now pending or later filed in this district that arise out of or are related to the same facts as alleged in the Redeemer Actions," were procedurally consolidated for pretrial and discovery purposes by order dated November 10, 2010, as amended by order dated November 17, 2010. See Consolidation Order, ¶ 2. This Court additionally entered a scheduling order, subsequently revised, implementing a coordinated schedule for the Actions. See Revised Second Amended Preliminary Scheduling Order for Redeemer Actions, Adv. Pro. No. 10-03496, Dkt. No. 220.
In addition to the Redeemer Actions, the Foreign Representatives are pursuing Sentry's action against its former investment advisors, including Fairfield Greenwich Group, Fairfield Greenwich Limited, Fairfield Greenwich (Bermuda) Limited, Fairfield Greenwich Advisors LLC, Fairfield International Managers, Inc. and certain related individuals, seeking in excess of $919 million in investment management and performance fees from Sentry's BLMIS account (the "Sentry Direct Action"). The Sentry Direct Action was commenced in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on May 29, 2009, and ultimately removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") and referred to this Court, where it is currently pending. See Fairfield Sentry Ltd. v. Fairfield Greenwich Group, et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03800 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). The parties entered into a stipulation whereby the defendants' time to move, answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is set for June 6, 2011. See id., Dkt. No. 9. There has been no remand motion filed with respect to this action. The complex issues involving these claims are the subject of a pending settlement described below.
In addition to the actions now pending, the Foreign Representatives are investigating potential claims against any parties bearing responsibility for the Debtors' massive losses in value in connection with their BLMIS investments.
Aside from actions pursued by the Foreign Representatives, there is also pending before this Court a putative derivative action (the "Sentry Derivative Action") commenced
Finally, this Court is overseeing the action commenced prior to the Recognition Date by the Trustee of the SIPA liquidation proceeding of BLMIS (the "BLMIS Trustee") seeking, inter alia, over $3 billion in fraudulent transfers and preferences from the Debtors (the "BLMIS Trustee's Action"). See Picard v. Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al. (In re BLMIS), Adv. Pro. No. 09-01239 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). Pursuant to the Recognition Order, this proceeding has remained active, with the parties engaged in ongoing negotiations. See In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. 60, 66 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2010) (staying upon recognition and the request of the Foreign Representatives "all actions concerning the Debtors' rights and assets, with the limited exception of recognizing and implementing the stipulation entered into in the BLMIS Trustee's adversary proceeding against the Debtors, with respect to which the parties continue to engage in good faith efforts to facilitate settlement."). A preliminarily proposed settlement has been reached, and a motion for approval has been scheduled to be heard by this Court on June 7, 2011 and by the BVI Court on June 8, 2011. Picard v. Fairfield Sentry Ltd, et al. (In re BLMIS), Adv. Pro. No. 09-01239, Dkt. No. 69 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.); In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al., Case No. 10-13164, Dkt. No. 411 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.).
The Movants seeking remand are defendants in 42 of the 209 pending Redeemer Actions, leaving 14 removed Redeemer Actions and 167 total Redeemer Actions pending before this Court without request for remand or challenge to subject matter jurisdiction. See Redeemer Actions Statistics Letter, p. 2.
The Movants previously filed approximately 40 motions before the District Court requesting withdrawal of the reference and determination by the District Court of the remand issue (the "Withdrawal Motions"). The Withdrawal Motions were consolidated before a single judge and denied on November 22, 2010. The District Court determined that "judicial efficiency would be served and the uniform administration of the bankruptcy laws improved by allowing the bankruptcy judge to decide this [remand] issue in the first instance," and accordingly held that "[t]he bankruptcy court is empowered to consider the merits of any motions to remand to state court" in these related and administratively consolidated Redeemer Actions. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al., 2010 WL 4910119, at *2, *4.
As an issue of first impression in the Second Circuit, in accordance with the reasoning articulated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Fogerty v. Petroquest
The Actions were removed to this Court by the Foreign Representatives pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1452, which provides that "[a] party may remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action . . . to the district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action under section 1334 of this title." 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (emphasis added). Upon the instant Remand Motions, the Foreign Representatives, as the party removing the actions, bear the burden of establishing such jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Blockbuster Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir.2006) (reviewing removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446); Pan Atl. Group, Inc. v. Republic Ins. Co., 878 F.Supp. 630, 638 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Bankruptcy court jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. section 1334, which provides that "the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11." 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) ("Each district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district."); Standing Order of Referral of Cases to Bankruptcy Judges, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (July 10, 1984). Matters that "arise under" title 11 or "arise in" cases under title 11 are within the bankruptcy court's "core" jurisdiction, and may therefore be heard and determined by the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) ("Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11. . . ."); see also Silverman v. Gen. Ry. Signal Co. (In re Leco Enters., Inc.), 144 B.R. 244, 248 (S.D.N.Y.1992) ("[T]he core proceedings listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) are essentially identical to the claims defined as `arising in' and `arising under' proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 1334.") (citations omitted); Moelis & Co. LLC v. Wilmington Trust FSB (In re Gen. Growth Props., Inc., et al.), Adv. Pro. No. 10-04273, 2011 WL 766129, at *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb.25, 2011) ("Core matters include those that `arise under' or `arise in' bankruptcy cases."). Matters that are not core proceedings, but are "otherwise related to a case under title 11" may be heard by the bankruptcy court and determined by the district court upon consideration of the bankruptcy court's findings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).
A non-exclusive list of core proceedings that arise under title 11 or arise in cases under title 11 is set forth in 28 U.S.C. section 157(b)(2), including (i) matters concerning the administration of the estate; (ii) orders to turn over property of the estate; (iii) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences; (iv) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances; (v) other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or equity security holder relationship; and (vi) recognition of foreign proceedings and other matters under chapter 15 of title 11. See 28 U.S.C.
Courts in the Second Circuit maintain that "core proceedings should be given a broad interpretation," including any proceeding that (1) is unique to or uniquely affected by the bankruptcy proceedings, or (2) directly affects a core bankruptcy function. United States Lines, Inc. v. Am. S.S. Owners Mut. Prot. and Indem. Assoc., Inc. (In re United States Lines, Inc.), 197 F.3d 631, 636 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotations omitted); see also LFD Operating, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. (In re Ames Dep't Stores, Inc.), No. 06-CIV-5394, 2008 WL 7542200, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2008). A determination that a proceeding is core "shall not be made solely on the basis that its resolution may be affected by State law," 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), but rather "on a case by case basis by evaluating both the form and the substance of the particular proceeding." Ames Dep't Stores, Inc., 2008 WL 7542200, at *6; see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Best Prods. Co. (In re Best Prods. Co.), 68 F.3d 26, 31 (2d Cir.1995) ("A determination of whether a matter is `core' depends on the nature of the proceeding.").
Particularly relevant here is the last category in the non-exclusive statutory list of core proceedings, "recognition of foreign proceedings and other matters under chapter 15 of title 11," 28 U.S.C. § 157(P), added by Congress in adopting chapter 15 of the Code. H.R. Rep. 108-40(I), 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (Mar. 18, 2003) ("[A] new subsection (P) to section 157 of title 28 makes cases under this chapter part of the core jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts. . . ."). This addition dictates that certain chapter 15 matters, including but not limited to the adjudication of the recognition petition itself, fall within the core jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. In fact, the bankruptcy court is statutorily prohibited from permissively abstaining in the interests of comity with state courts or respect for state law with respect to chapter 15 cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) ("Except with respect to a case under chapter 15 of title 11, nothing in this section prevents a district court in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11.") (emphasis added). This centralization and federalization of core chapter 15 proceedings is not undone by section 1509 of the Code, which advises that the foreign representative has the capacity to sue in other courts in the United States only "[i]f the court grants recognition. . . and subject to any limitations that the court may impose consistent with the policy of [chapter 15]." 11 U.S.C. § 1509(b) (emphasis added). The legislative history of section 1509 of the Code reaffirms that
H.Rep. No. 109-31, Pt. 1, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. 100-111 (2005) (emphasis added). Consistent with the purposes of chapter 15 to promote uniformity and ease communication and coordination, the effect of these provisions, read in light of existing core jurisdiction precedent, is to centralize within the bankruptcy court civil proceedings arising under, or arising in cases under, chapter 15 that by nature are unique to bankruptcy or directly affect the core
Against this backdrop, the BVI Avoidance Claims are precisely the "other matters under chapter 15 of the Code" over which this Court retains core jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(P). The BVI Avoidance Claims for "unfair preferences" and "undervalue transactions" are, as their names suggest, statutory claims under BVI insolvency law, assertable only by the Foreign Representatives, to avoid and recover certain transfers of assets from the Debtor for the benefit of the BVI estate. Supp. Hare Decl., ¶ 18 & Ex. B, pp. 137-39. They are analogous to traditionally core United States bankruptcy proceedings "to determine, avoid, or recover preferences," "to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances" or "affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate," and are likewise inextricably tied to the value of the BVI estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F), (H), (O). The Foreign Representatives' pursuit of these claims falls directly under this Court's grant of discretionary relief in the Recognition Order, "entrusting the administration or realization of all or part of the debtor's assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States to the foreign representative." 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(5); In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., 440 B.R. 60, 67 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2010); see also In re Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd., 389 B.R. 325, 333 (S.D.N.Y.2008) ("Relief [under sections 1507, 1521 and 1525] is largely discretionary and turns on subjective factors that embody principles of comity."). Such assets include not only tangible funds, but also intangible assets, including the Actions themselves, located within the United States.
It has already become apparent that during the course of the litigation of the BVI Avoidance Claims, issues arising under title 11 and "unique to" U.S. bankruptcy law will require adjudication. In re U.S. Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d at 637; see also O'Sullivan v. Loy (In re Loy), 432 B.R. 551, 559 (E.D.Va.2010) ("Chapter 15 is clearly designed to be integrated into the rest of the Bankruptcy Code."). For instance, while the Foreign Representatives stated at oral argument that "[section] 103 of the Bankruptcy Code . . . excludes section 546(e) or section 546 in its entirety from chapter 15," Hr'g Tr., p. 64,
The Common Law Claims are inexorably tied to the BVI Avoidance Claims and may well be considered core under the circumstances here.
This Court's adjudication of the Actions as a whole is consistent with chapter 15 principles of comity, which are effective only to the extent that deference to the laws or policies of the foreign proceeding is in the "interests of the United States, the interests of the foreign state or states involved, and the mutual interests of the family of nations in just and efficiently functioning rules of international law." In re Atlas Shipping A/S, 404 B.R. 726, 733 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2009); see also Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95 (1895) ("Comity . . . is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own
This Court additionally finds that subject matter jurisdiction over the Actions is not otherwise prohibited by chapter 15, consistent with the pioneer decision on this issue from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. See generally In re Condor Ins. Ltd., 601 F.3d at 319-27. In Condor, the bankruptcy court below granted foreign main recognition of the debtor's insolvency proceedings in Nevis. The foreign representatives commenced avoidance actions under Nevis law in the chapter 15 case, seeking to recover more than $313 million in assets allegedly transferred by the debtor to a U.S. affiliate (the "Nevis Avoidance Claims"). They relied for this relief upon section 1521(a) of the Code, which provides that the bankruptcy court may grant "any appropriate relief," including "any additional relief that may be available to a trustee, except for relief available under sections 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 550, and 724(a)." 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(7); In re Condor Ins. Ltd., 601 F.3d at 322 ("The foreign representatives seek relief under section 1521(a) of Chapter 15."). The defendant, relying particularly upon the exception contained in section 1521(a)(7) of the Code (the "U.S. Avoidance Law Exception"), moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, contending that the Nevis Avoidance Claims could be brought only within the context of a plenary proceeding commenced under another chapter of the Code. See id. at § 1523 ("[T]he foreign representative has standing in a case concerning the debtor pending under another chapter of this title to initiate actions under sections 522, 544, 545, 547, 548, 550, 553, and 724(a)."). While the bankruptcy court, and later the Mississippi District Court, agreed with the defendant, the Fifth Circuit reversed.
The Fifth Circuit, reading section 1521(a)(7) of the Code in the context of chapter 15 as a whole, rejected the theory that the liquidators were prohibited from bringing Nevis Avoidance Claims. Rather, the court held, "[a]s Chapter 15 was intended to facilitate cooperation between U.S. courts and foreign bankruptcy proceedings, we read section 1521(a)(7) in that light and hold that a court has authority to permit relief under foreign avoidance law." In re Condor Ins. Ltd., 601 F.3d at 329; See also In re Atlas Shipping A/S, 404 B.R. at 744 ("The . . . conclusion that Congress intended to prevent a foreign representative from bringing avoidance actions based on foreign law is not supported by anything specifically in the legislative history. . . [and] ignores cases decided under § 304 [the predecessor to chapter 15]."). The Court acknowledged that the U.S.
This Court agrees and finds that, under the circumstances here, subject matter jurisdiction over the Actions as a whole is consistent with chapter 15, the tenor of which is to provide deference to the laws and policies of the foreign main proceeding in the interests of comity. See 11 U.S.C. § 1501. The main thrust of section 1521 of the Code is not the U.S. Avoidance Law Exception—which itself must be read to protect, rather than restrict, deference to the laws of the foreign main proceeding— but the broad grant that "where necessary to effectuate the purpose of this chapter and to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of creditors, the court may, at the request of the foreign representative, grant any appropriate relief." 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a); In re JSC BTA Bank, 434 B.R. 334, 341 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2010) (noting the "ancillary character of a chapter 15 case and the auxiliary role of the bankruptcy court"). Indeed, sections 1521 and 1522 of the Code allow the bankruptcy court "exceedingly broad" discretion to grant appropriate relief, In re Atlas Shipping, 404 B.R. at 739, and "additional assistance" is available where necessary to effectuate the purposes of chapter 15, 11 U.S.C. § 1507. In the context of these cases, efficient and effective ancillary assistance properly entails overseeing both the BVI Avoidance Claims and the Common Law Claims, which do not seek to substitute excluded U.S. avoidance laws for the laws of the foreign main proceedings, but rather are authorized under BVI law to be pursued by the Foreign Representatives on behalf of the Debtors. BVI Insolvency Order, pp. 11-13; BVI Order Permitting Amendments, ¶¶ 1-2; Supp. Krys Decl., ¶ 20 & Ex. G (stating that claims "to recover improperly-calculated redemption payments made by the Debtors" to shareholders have also been asserted in the BVI Proceedings); see also In re Atlas Shipping A/S, 404 B.R. at 744, n. 16 ("[A] preference action under foreign law would not appear to depend on status as a judgment lien creditor and, therefore, § 544(b) would appear inapplicable to such claims. A preference action under foreign law might be available as `additional assistance' under § 1507."). Therefore, the Court finds that its subject matter jurisdiction over the Actions is supported by chapter 15 and its mandate to "cooperate to the maximum extent possible with a foreign court or a foreign representative."
In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al., 2010 WL 4910119, at *3 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Foreign Representatives have established core subject matter jurisdiction over the Actions sufficient to defeat the Remand Motions.
Even if the Actions were not core proceedings, jurisdiction is supported on the grounds that the they are "related to" the Debtors' chapter 15 cases. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). As recently reaffirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals under the predecessor statute to chapter 15, "[f]or purposes of removal jurisdiction, a civil proceeding is `related to' a title 11 case if the action's outcome might have any `conceivable effect' on the bankrupt estate." Parmalat, 2011 WL 1365008, at *4 (quoting Publicker Indus. Inc. v. U.S. (In re Cuyahoga Equip. Corp.), 980 F.2d 110, 114 (2d Cir.1992)) (emphasis added); see also Hart v. Bello, No. 11-CIV-67, 2011 WL 1584577, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2011).
This recent decision puts to rest Movants' arguments that there cannot be "related to" jurisdiction over a proceeding in a chapter 15 case "because no estate exists on which the claims could have any conceivable affect [sic]." EFG Bank Mot., p. 6.
Here, as in Parmalat, "[i]t is not difficult to conclude that the `conceivable effect' test is satisfied." Id. at *3 (finding "related to" jurisdiction over state law actions against debtor's principals). As the District Court has acknowledged in these cases, to the extent the Foreign Representatives succeed in litigating, settling or otherwise pursuing the Actions, "[a]ny recovery. . . would accrue to the benefit of the Plaintiffs' bankruptcy estates" by becoming available for distribution to stakeholders. In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al., 2010 WL 4910119, at *1; see also Parmalat, 2011 WL 1365008, at *3; ("[T]he funds they recover will benefit the respective bankruptcy estates.") (citing In re Boston Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 410 F.3d 100, 107 (1st Cir.2005) ("[The liquidating entity's] success or lack of success in securing a share of the trust corpus will directly impact the amount of the liquidating dividend eventually paid to [the debtor's] creditors. That is a matter intimately connected with the efficacy of the bankruptcy proceeding.")); Krys v. Sugrue, Nos. 08-CIV-3065 et al., 2008 WL 4700920, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2008) (finding claims in litigation trust closely "related to" bankruptcy where, inter alia, "any funds recovered . . . will go directly to [debtor's] largest creditors. . . ."). The Actions involve the Debtors and the Debtors' shareholders themselves, and have a more direct conceivable effect on the BVI estate than has been held necessary to satisfy this broad standard. See, e.g., Toth, 2007 WL 792172, at *2 (finding products liability action between non-debtor parties "related to" bankruptcy case where success of action would result
The enhancement in value to the BVI estate that may potentially be achieved is a substantial "conceivable effect" creating "related to" jurisdiction.
Turning now to remand, the Movants argue that the Court should decline exercising its subject matter jurisdiction and remand the removed Actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1452(b) "on any equitable ground." 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b). They similarly argue that the Court should abstain in its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1334(c)(1), which provides,
Id. at § 1334(c)(1).
As a preliminary matter, at least permissive abstention is unavailable here on the face of the statute. The Actions are proceedings "with respect to a case under chapter 15 of title 11," and therefore expressly excluded from the permissive abstention statute.
Courts in this District have held that "the factors for equitable remand are virtually identical to the factors for discretionary abstention pursuant to § 1334(c)(1)." Certain Underwriters, 2004 WL 224505, at *8; see also Kerusa Co. LLC v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd. P'ship, Nos. 04-CIV-708, et al., 2004 WL 1048239,
Application of these factors establishes that remand is inappropriate. The parties apparently agree that, at the very least, the Actions should proceed as a whole, including the BVI Avoidance Claims and the Common Law Claims. See HSBC Supp. Mot., p. 15, n.14 ("The court should abstain from hearing the BVI Avoidance claims to avoid the bifurcation of claims and actions between two courts. . . ."). However, New York state law issues do not exist with respect to the BVI Avoidance Claims, which arise under foreign law and have raised U.S. bankruptcy issues, and thus do not predominate in the Actions as a whole (factor 2). Moreover, the Common Law Claims, even if they could be feasibly severed, are not novel state law claims outside the abilities of the bankruptcy court to adjudicate, as they are based upon "long-established principle[s]" of unjust enrichment, restitution, constructive trust, and mistaken payment arising out of the same facts as the Madoff Ponzi scheme with which this Court lives, particularly with respect to the BLMIS Trustee's Action involving the Debtors (factor 3). Williamson v. Stallone, 28 Misc.3d 738, 905 N.Y.S.2d 740, 747 (Sup.Ct.2010) (adjudicating mistaken payments as a result of overvaluation of investment fund) (internal quotations omitted); see also Caldor Corp. v. S. Plaza Assocs. L.P. (In re Caldor, Inc.), 217 B.R. 121, 128 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.1998) (deciding that a debtor's claim for unjust enrichment constituted a core proceeding); Unsecured Creditors Comm. of Debtor STN Enters., Inc. v. Noyes (In re STN Enters., Inc.), 73 B.R. 470, 493 (Bankr.D.Vt.1987) (same). Moreover, bifurcating them from the BVI Avoidance Claims or remanding the removed Actions without the post-recognition Redeemer Actions proceeding here would result in duplicative efforts on the parts of the parties and the courts and risk inconsistent rulings (factor 8).
The degree of relatedness to the BVI estate is high, as the Actions seek restitution of transfers from the Debtors themselves for a potentially substantial recovery to creditors, and they "turn largely on issues that are intertwined" with claims pursued in the BVI, as well as adversary proceedings ongoing before this Court (factors 1, 5). Hart, 2011 WL 1584577, at *5 (internal quotations omitted). While the existence of a right to a jury trial favors remand, at least the Foreign Representatives seem to have retracted their requests, arguing that "under BVI law, there is no right to a jury trial in connection with adjudicating the BVI Avoidance Claims," and that severing the Common Law Claims to allow jury trials would be
Accordingly, equitable factors militate strongly against remand or abstention.
Movants argue that despite all of the foregoing, the Court is required to abstain from hearing the Actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1334(c)(2), which provides,
28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) (emphasis added). Abstention is required only where all of the following elements of the statute are satisfied: (1) the abstention motion was timely brought; (2) the action is based upon a state law claim; (3) the action is related to a bankruptcy case, as opposed to arising under the Code or arising in a case under the Code; (4) the sole federal jurisdiction for the action is 28 U.S.C. § 1334; (5) an action was commenced in state court; and (6) the action can be timely adjudicated in state court. In re Adelphia Comm'ns Corp., 285 B.R. 127, 141 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2002).
Here, mandatory abstention is inapplicable on the face of the statute itself, as well as under factor 3, given that the Actions fall within this Court's core bankruptcy jurisdiction as, inter alia, requiring adjudication of issues arising under the Code, affecting liquidation of assets of the BVI estate, and directly affecting this Court's core bankruptcy functions under chapter 15. See supra at Section I; 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) ("[I]n a proceeding based upon a State law claim or State law cause of action, related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11 . . . the district court shall abstain. . . .") (emphasis added); see also In re Gen. Growth Props., Inc., 2011 WL 766129, at *6 ("Since the State Court Action is one `arising in' a bankruptcy case and within this Court's core jurisdiction, mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) is inapplicable on its own terms."). Thus, abstention is properly denied on this basis alone.
Moreover, even if the Actions were non-core, at least factor 2 is also not clearly satisfied. The Actions as a whole are not "based upon a State law claim," but rather implicate foreign and U.S. insolvency
With respect to timely adjudication under factor 6, the Second Circuit has recently held that the following considerations are relevant: (a) the backlog of the state court's calendar relative to the federal court's calendar; (b) the complexity of the issues presented and the respective expertise of each forum; (c) the status of the title 11 bankruptcy proceeding to which the state law claims are related; and (d) whether the state court proceeding would prolong the administration or liquidation of the foreign estate. Parmalat, 2011 WL 1365008, at *5, *6.
Notwithstanding the undoubted abilities of the State Court, the Actions' unique procedural posture as substantially identical to numerous post-recognition Redeemer Actions remaining here, as well as their strong substantive ties to the laws and administration of the BVI estate, overwhelmingly support that the most timely adjudication will be in this Court, as the "single court" fully informed of the facts and status of the Debtors' foreign proceedings. Daniel M. Glosband et al., The American Bankruptcy Institute Guide to Cross-Border Insolvency in The United States, 26 (American Bankruptcy Institute 2008). Procedurally, as over 160 Redeemer Actions were not commenced in a state forum, abstention from only those Actions, or claims, subject to mandatory abstention would undermine joint discovery and litigation efforts, duplicate costs, and thus undoubtedly prolong the time by which the BVI Court can administer the estate in accordance with potentially conflicting rulings from this Court and the State Court (factor d). See Supp. Krys Decl., ¶ 16 ("[B]ifurcated proceedings in the United States . . . will require more administrative manpower on the parts of the Liquidators and U.S. Counsel, all of which will be paid from the Debtors' estates and further diminish and prolong distribution to the Debtors' stakeholders in the BVI."). Substantively, the Movants have acknowledged "the complexity of the issues that could arise on the motion to dismiss, both with regard to jurisdiction, service and the merits," and this Court's familiarity with the facts and procedure of the chapter 15 and foreign main proceeding have equipped it to handle these issues in a more timely manner than can be accomplished in the State Court (factor b).
Finally, Movants argue that the Actions should be remanded on the basis that the
Where, as here, an action is removed under 28 U.S.C. section 1452 as related to a bankruptcy case, the deadline applicable to the filing of the notice of removal depends upon whether the action was asserted before or after the "commencement of the case under the Code." FED. R. BANKR.P. 9027(a)(2), (3). Where the action is asserted prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case, the notice of removal must be filed within 90 days of the order for relief. FED. R. BANKR.P. 9027(a)(2). Where the action is commenced after the case, the notice may be filed "30 days after receipt, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim or cause of action sought to be removed." FED. R. BANKR.P. 9027(a)(3). It is undisputed that the instant chapter 15 cases were commenced on the Petition Date of June 14, 2010. See 11 U.S.C. § 1504 ("A case under this chapter is commenced by the filing of a petition for recognition of a foreign proceeding under section 1515.").
Movants' objections to the timeliness of removal rely principally upon assumptions that (i) with regard to pre-petition Actions, the 30-day deadline under 28 U.S.C. section 1446, rather than the 90-day deadline of Bankruptcy Rule 9027(a)(2), applies in a chapter 15 case because it lacks a defined "order for relief";
Contrary to the Movants' first argument, this Court joins the great weight of authority in holding that the 90-day deadline of Bankruptcy Rule 9027, rather than the 30-day deadline of 28 U.S.C. section 1446, indeed governs removal of the Actions. As distinguished from general removal governed substantively by 28 U.S.C. section 1441 and procedurally by 28 U.S.C. section 1446, "the removal of claims or causes of action related to bankruptcy cases is now governed substantively by 28 U.S.C.[] § 1452(a) and procedurally by [Bankruptcy Rule] 9027." In re Boyer, 108 B.R. 19, 24 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1988); see also Gilbert v. AGCO Corp., No. 1:09-CV-962, 2009 WL 3672071, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Oct.30, 2009) ("This Court agrees with the majority rule . . . that . . . removals pursuant to § 1452 continue to be covered by the times set forth in Bankruptcy Rule
Proceeding from this premise, all removal notices filed in Actions asserted prior to the commencement of these cases were timely filed within 90 days from the date of entry of the Recognition Order. To illustrate, it is undisputed that the Action involving Movant-defendant FIBI Bank was asserted on May 14, 2010, before the commencement of these cases on June 14, 2010. See FIBI Bank Mot., p. 1, Adv. Pro. No. 10-03779, Dkt. No. 7. The Action thus falls under Bankruptcy Rule 9027(a)(2), whereby a notice of removal must be filed within 90 days after the order for relief. This time expired on October 20, 2010, 90 days after the Recognition Date of July 22, 2010. The notice of removal of the FIBI Bank Action was filed on September 10, 2010, well before the October 20, 2010 deadline. See id. at p. 2.
With respect to post-petition Actions governed by Bankruptcy Rule 9027(a)(3), the Court adopts neither the construction proposed by Movants, nor that favored by the Foreign Representatives. Courts have not had much occasion to apply Bankruptcy Rule 9027(a)(3) to a factual scenario where, as here, the party in "receipt" of the claim and seeking to remove the claim is simultaneously the party who asserted the claim. See COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 9027.05[2] at 9027-10 ("If the removing party is the plaintiff, the initial pleading will generally be a responsive pleading filed by the defendant that sets out a claim or cause of action against the plaintiff."). The Movants posit that upon such facts "[t]here is no conceivable rationale for setting the deadline for plaintiff to remove its own action to the defendant's receipt of the initial pleading," JP Morgan Reply, p. 15, and proceed to concoct a more suitable statute that would read, "where a plaintiff seeks to remove its own claims, it must remove the claims within 30 days of initiating them with the `initial' filing," Safra Reply, p. 7 (emphasis added). The Foreign Representatives, on the other hand, claim that time runs from receipt of the answers, irrespective of the fact that the claims they seek to remove were raised not in the answers but in the earlier summonses with notice.
While cognizant of the unique factual posture of these cases for purposes of applying Bankruptcy Rule 9027(a)(3), the Court finds that the plain and unambiguous language controls and, contrary to the Movants' arguments, is consistent with sound policy. The initial pleadings here were the summonses with notice filed in the State Court. The Foreign Representatives do not dispute that these pleadings set forth the claims sought to be removed. The receipt thereof by the Movant-Defendants therefore triggered the time within which either party could file a notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1452 ("A party may remove any claim. . . .") (emphasis added). It is not as inconceivable as the Movants suggest that this is an intended result based upon the reasonable rationale that the 30 days should neatly expire on one date, irrespective of which party filed the notice of removal, and that it should begin to run only once both the asserting and non-asserting parties have received notice and an opportunity to evaluate the removability of the claims. Moreover, the Movants' proposal that time run from the filing of the initial pleading in these circumstances is arbitrary, as the party filing a pleading presumably has actual notice of its claims on some earlier date. In any event, the language of the Bankruptcy Rule is unambiguous, and "the sole function of the court[] is to enforce it according to its terms." United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) (internal quotations omitted); see also Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 716, 723, 178 L.Ed.2d 603 (2011) ("Our interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code starts where all such inquiries must begin: with the language of the statute itself."); Term Loan Holder Comm. v. Ozer Group, LLC (In re The Caldor Corp.), 303 F.3d 161, 167 (2d Cir.2002) (same). As such, time for removal of the post-petition Actions expired 30 days from receipt of the initial summonses with notice by the Movant-defendants.
Applying this analysis, the vast majority of the post-petition Actions were also timely removed. The Action involving Movant-defendant J.P. Morgan, for example, was initiated on July 16, 2010, after the Petition Date of June 14, 2010 (but before the Recognition Date, it should be noted), falling under Bankruptcy Rule 9027(a)(3). See J.P. Morgan Reply, pp. 13, 14. For purposes of this decision, service of the
While the result is the same for the majority of post-petition Actions, the Foreign Representatives' declarations and supporting exhibits indicate that four Actions were removed after the 30-day deadline.
Despite this finding, the Court recognizes that under the extant circumstances, accepting these few untimely removal applications is necessary to promote efficiency and otherwise safeguard the adjudicative process for the overall benefit of the litigants and the judicial system. It has been recognized, with keen application to the circumstances now presented, that
Am. Fidelity Inv. v. Gagel, 20 B.R. 122, 124-25 (Bankr.Ohio 1982) (internal citations omitted). The 209 pending Redeemer Actions seek over $5.79 billion in potential BVI estate assets, the realization of
For the reasons set forth, the Remand Motions are DENIED.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE NAME DOCKET NO.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al v. ABN 10-03635-BRL*+
AMRO Schweiz AG, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. ABN 10-03636-BRL*+
AMRO Schweiz AG, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Fairfield Sentr Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Abu Dhabi 11-01719-BRL
Inv. Auth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. All 11-01591-BRL+
Funds Bank, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al v. Almel 10-03789-BRL
Ltd., et al
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Alton 10-03541-BRL
Select Ltd., et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Apollo 11-01603-BRL+
Nominees, Inc., et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Arden 11-01458-BRL
Endowment Advisers Ltd., et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Arden 10-03870-BRL
Intl Capital Ltd., et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. AXA Isle 10-03623-BRL*
of Man, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banca Di 11-01572-BRL+
San Marino SPA, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banca 11-01717-BRL+
Privada D'Andorra S.A.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banc of 11-01571-BRL
America Securities LLC, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banco 10-03783-BRL
Atlantico (Bah.), et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banco 10-03787-BRL*
Atlantico (Gib.) Ltd., et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banco 10-03515-BRL+
Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A., et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banco di 10-04096-BRL+
Desio e Della Brianza, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banco 10-04089-BRL+
Inversis SA, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banco 10-03755-BRL*+
Itau Europa Lux. SA, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banco 10-04097-BRL
Nominees (IOM) Ltd., et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banco 10-03509-BRL+
Santander (Suisse) S.A., et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bank of 10-03615-BRL+
Am. Nat'l Trust & Say. Ass'n, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bank 10-03510-BRL+
Hapoalim (Suisse) Ltd., et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bank 11-01243-BRL+
Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., Zurich, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bank 10-04212-BRL+
Morgan Stanley AG, et al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bank 11-01612-BRL Sarasin & Cie AG, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bank 11-01760-BRL + Vontobel AG, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 11-01718-BRL+ Benedict Hentsch & Cie S.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 10-03748-BRL*+ de Commerce et de Placements, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 10-03616-BRL+ de Lux., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 11-01585-BRL+ de Reescompte et de Placement, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 11-01598-BRL+ et Caisse D'Epargne de L'Etat Luxembourg, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 10-03514-BRL+ Piguet & Cie S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 10-03505-BRL+ Privee Edmond De Rothschild (Eur.), et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 10-03872-BRL+ Safra Lux. S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 11-01256-BRL+ SCS Alliance S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 10-03586-BRL Sudameris, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 10-03749-BRL Sudameris, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Banque 10-03513-BRL+ Syz & Co. S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Barclays 11-01259-BRL+ Bank (Suisse) S.A. et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Barfield 11-01470-BRL+ Nominees Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bear 11-01583-BRL+ Stearns Alt. Assets Intl Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bie Bank 11-01587-BRL+ & Trust Bah. Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bipielle 11-01568-BRL+ Banke (Suisse), et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Blubank 10-03750-BRL*+ Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. BNP 10-04098-BRL+ Paribas Arbitrage SNC, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. BNP 10-03626-BRL*+ Paribas Lux. S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. BNP 10-04099-BRL+ Paribas Private Bank & Trust Cayman Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. BNP 11-01579-BRL+ Paribas Sec. Nominees Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. BNP 10-03627-BRL*+ Paribas Sec. Servs. Lux., et al. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. BNY 11-01589-BRL + AIS Nominees Ltd., Credit Andorra/Crediivest, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bordier 10-03873-BRL+ & Cie, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. BP 11-01245-BRL+ Alpha S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Brown 10-03752-BRL*+ Bros. Harriman & Co., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Bureau 11-01574-BRL+ of Labor Ins., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Caceis 10-03871-BRL+ Bank EX-IXIS IS, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Caceis 10-03624-BRL*+ Bank Lux., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Capluck 11-01573-BRL+ Enterprises Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Cathay 11-01577-BRL+ Life Ins. Co. Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. CDC 10-03754-BRL* IXIS, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Celfin 10-03865-BRL+ Intl Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Chen 11-01611-BRL+ Tyan-Wen, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 63. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Citibank 10-03622-BRL*+ NA London, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Citibank 10-03640-BRL*+ (Switz.) AG, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Citivic 10-04100-BRL+ Nominees Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 66. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01263-BRL+ Clearstream Banking S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 10-04093-BRL+ Commercial Bank of Kuwait, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Credit 11-01590-BRL+ Agricole Lux. Private Bank, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Credit 11-01244-BRL+ Agricole (Suisse) S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Credit 11-01575-BRL+ Industriel et Commercial Sing. Branch, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 71. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Credit 11-01601-BRL+ Suisse AG Nassau Branch Wealth Mgmt., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 72. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Credit 10-03782-BRL* Suisse (Bah.), et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Credit 10-04236-BRL+ Suisse Nominees, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Credit 10-04088-BRL+ Suisse (Lux.) S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Credit 10-03620-BRL+ Suisse Intl, et al. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 76. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Credito 10-03797-BRL Privato Commerciale S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Credito 11-01602-BRL + Sammarinese SPA, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Deutsche 10-03747-BRL*+ Bank AG Sing., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 79. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Deutsche 10-03746-BRL*+ Bank (Cayman), et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Deutsche 11-01564-BRL+ Bank Nominees (Jersey) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 81. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Deutsche 10-03745-BRL*+ Bank (Suisse) S.A. Geneve, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Deutsche 10-03744-BRL*+ Bank Trust Co. Am., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Dexia 10-04090-BRL+ BIL, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 84. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Dexia 10-04091-BRL+ Private Bank (Switz.), et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Drake & 11-01246-BRL Co., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 86. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 10-03753-BRL Dresdner LateinAmerika AG, et al ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. E. Star 11-01597-BRL+ Sicavf, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 88. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Eduardo 11-01599-BRL+ Fernandez de Valderrama Murillo, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 89. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. EFG 10-03625-BRL*+ Bank, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. F1131 10-03779-BRL* Bank (Switz.), et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Fortis 11-01617-BRL+ Bank SA/NV, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 92. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al v. Fortis 11-01614-BRL+ SA/NV, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 93. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Fortis 10-03776-BRL*+ (Isle of Man) Nominees Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 94. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS ABN 10-03504-BRL+ AMRO Global Custody, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 95. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al v. FS/AEB 11-01254-BRL+ Lux., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 96. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al v. 10-03632-BRL*+ FS/AND Banc Andorra, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 97. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01569-BRL+ FS/Banque Degroof Bruxelles, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 98. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS/BBVA 11-01600-BRL+ Zurich/Shares, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01469-BRL+ FS/Bewaarbedrijf Binckbank, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS/BK 11-01467-BRL+ Hapoalim/B M Tel Aviv, et al. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al v. FS/BBVA 10-03618-BRL + Miami, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 102. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 10-03756-BRL*+ FS/CBESSA, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01242-BRL+ FS/Fortis Banque Lux., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 104. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS/HSBC 11-01594-BRL+ Guyerzeller Zurich, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 105. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS/HSBC 10-03629-BRL*+ Private Banking Nom, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 106. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al v. FS/ING 11-01565-BRL+ Lux, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 107. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01610-BRL+ FS/Israel Discount Bank, Ltd., Tel Aviv, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 108. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS/LAB/AXA 11-01460-BRL+ PM, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 109. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS 10-03512-BRL+ Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS/NBK 11-01260-BRL+ Kuwait, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS/NBP 11-01619-BRL+ Titres, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 112. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS Oddo 10-03621-BRL+ & Cie, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01262-BRL+ FS/Procap/Bryan Garnier, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 114. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS/SG 11-01566-BRL+ Private Banking (Lugano-Svizzera) SA, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 115. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. FS 10-03867-BRL+ Stichting Stroeve Global Custody, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 116. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01253-BRL+ FS/Swedclient/IAM, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 117. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Fund 10-03525-BRL+ Nominees Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 118. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Global 11-01567-BRL Fund Porvenir, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 119. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Grand 11-01462-BRL+ Cathay Sec. (H.K.) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 120. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Hambros 10-03799-BRL* Guernsey Nominees, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 121. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Hansard 10-04238-BRL+ Europe Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 122. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. HSBC 10-03619-BRL+ Inst. Trust Srvs. (Asia) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 123. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. HSBC 10-03631-BRL*+ Private Bank (Guernsey) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 124. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. HSBC 10-03633-BRL*+ Private Bank (Suisse) S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 125. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. HSBC 10-03630-BRL*+ Sec. Servs. (Lux.) S.A., et al. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 126. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Hsu; et 11-01247-BRL al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 127. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Huang, 11-01255-BRL + et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 128. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Huang 11-01465-BRL Long-Yin, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 129. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01466-BRL Hui-Liang Tsai And Chien-Hui Tu, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 130. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. ING 10-03801-BRL*+ Bank (Suisse) S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 131. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. JP 10-04092-BRL+ Morgan Sec. Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 132. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. JP 10-03785-BRL*+ Morgan Trust Co. (Cayman) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 133. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Judith 11-01592-BRL+ Cherwinka, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 134. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Judith A. 11-01593-BRL+ Hansen, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 135. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. KB (CI) 10-04240-BRL+ Nominees Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 136. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Kefong 11-01596-BRL+ Lee, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 137. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Koch 11-01606-BRL Inv. (UK) Co., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Kookmin 10-03777-BRL* Bank, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 139. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Korea 11-01486-BRL+ Exch. Bank ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 140. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 10-03868-BRL+ Kredietbank S.A. Luxembourgeoise, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 141. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. KWI, et 11-01595-BRL+ al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 142. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Lacroze, 10-03528-BRL et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 143. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Leyden 11-01622-BRL+ Dev., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 144. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Lombard 10-03795-BRL*+ Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 145. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 10-03521-BRL+ Lombardy Props. Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 146. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Lung 11-01608-BRL+ Yen Life Service Co. Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 147. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01607-BRL+ Melguizo, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Melrose 11-01461-BRL+ Inv. Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 149. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Meritz 10-03507-BRL+ Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Merrill 10-03788-BRL*+ Lynch Bank (Suisse) S.A., et al. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 151. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Merrill 11-01463-BRL + Lynch Int'l, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 152. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Merrill 10-03516-BRL+ Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 153. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Mint 11-01605-BRL+ Iversiones Sicav S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 154. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01257-BRL+ Mirabaud & Cie, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 155. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Monte 10-03791-BRL+ Paschi Ir. Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 156. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01576-BRL Multi-Strategy Fund Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 157. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Natexis 10-04094-BRL Banques Populaires, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 158. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Natixis 11-01464-BRL+ f/k/a IXIS Corporate And Investment Bank, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 159. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Natixis 10-03864-BRL+ Private Banking Int'l, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 160. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Neue 10-03519-BRL+ Bank AG, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 161. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Nihon 11-01261-BRL+ Unicorn Corp., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 162. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Nomura 10-03793-BRL*+ Int'l PLC, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 163. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. N. 10-03781-BRL*+ Navigation Am. Inc., et al ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 164. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. NYROY, 11-01578-BRL+ Royal Bank of Canada, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 165. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Parson 11-01580-BRL Finance Panama S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 166. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. PFPC 11-01604-BRL+ Bank Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 167. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Pictet & 10-03764-BRL*+ Cie, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 168. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Pleasant 11-01613-BRL+ T. Rowland Found., Inc. et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 169. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. POBT 11-01248-BRL Bank & Trust Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 170. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Premier 11-01609-BRL+ Advisors Fund Offshore Ltd. et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 171. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Presnow 11-01620-BRL+ Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 172. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. PRS Inv. 10-04101-BRL+ Strategies Fund Class 4E, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 173. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Rahn & 11-01581-BRL+ Bodmer Banquiers, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 174. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. RBC 10-03502-BRL+ Dominion Sec. Sub NC, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 175. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Robinson 10-03628-BRL*+ & Co., et al. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 176. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Royal 11-01582-BRL + Bank of Canada (Asia) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 177. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Royal 10-04087-BRL+ Bank of Canada (Suisse), et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 178. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. S. Coop 11-01570-BRL+ Irizar, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 179. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Safra 10-03761-BRL*+ Nat'l Bank of N.Y., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 180. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Sanpaolo 11-01615-BRL+ Banca Dell' Adriatico S.P.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 181. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Schroder 10-03508-BRL+ & Co. (Asia) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 182. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Schroder 11-01249-BRL+ & Co. Bank AG, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 183. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. SG 10-03786-BRL*+ Private Banking (Suisse) S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 184. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. SG 10-03595-BRL+ Private Banking (Suisse) S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 185. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Sherli 10-03614-BRL+ Elghanian Krayem, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 186. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Six Sis 10-03869-BRL+ AG, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 187. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. SNS 10-03757-BRL*+ Global Custody B.V., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 188. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Societe 11-01584-BRL+ Generale Bank & Trust (Lux.), et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 189. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Strina, et 10-03798-BRL+ al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 190. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 10-03863-BRL+ Sumitomo Banking & Trust Co. Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 191. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 11-01586-BRL+ Swedbank, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 192. Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 10-03503-BRL+ Tercas-Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Teramo S.P.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 193. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. 10-03496-BRL Theodoor GGC Amsterdam, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 194. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Torshen, 10-03866-BRL et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 195. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Tsao, et 11-01468-BRL al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 196. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. UBS AG 10-03780-BRL+ N.Y., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 197. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. UBS 10-04095-BRL+ Fund Servs. (Cayman) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 198. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. UBS 10-03758-BRL Fund Servs. (Cayman) Ltd. Ref Greenlake Arbitrage Fund Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 199. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. UBS 11-01258-BRL+ Fund Servs. (Ir.) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 200. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. UBS 11-01250-BRL+ Lux. SA, et al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 201. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Union 10-03506-BRL + USD Global Arbitrage A Fund, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 202. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Vontobel 10-03540-BRL Asset Mgmt. Inc., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 203. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Wall 10-03778-BRL+ Street Sec. S.A., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 204. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Weston 10-03784-BRL Sec. Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 205. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Woori 11-01616-BRL+ Bank, et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 206. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Yuanta 11-01588-BRL+ Asset Mgmt. (H.K.) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 207. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Zayed, et 10-03790-BRL al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 208. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. ZCM 10-03792-BRL Asset Holding Co. (Berm.) Ltd., et al. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 209. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. (In Liquidation), et al. v. Zurich 10-03634-BRL* Capital Mkts. Co., et al. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
