Filed: Jun. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2013
Summary: ORDER RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge. On May 30, 2013, Receiver lan Gazes submitted a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") regarding his investigation into the assets forfeited in the related case, United States v. Vilar, et al., No. 06 Cr. 621 (RJS). The Court is now in receipt of responses to the R&R from (1) Lisa and Debra Mayer (the "Mayers"), petitioners in another related action, In re Mayer v. JP Morgan Secs., LLC, No. 12 Civ. 5240 (RJS) (the "Turnover Proceeding"); (2) J.P Morgan
Summary: ORDER RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge. On May 30, 2013, Receiver lan Gazes submitted a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") regarding his investigation into the assets forfeited in the related case, United States v. Vilar, et al., No. 06 Cr. 621 (RJS). The Court is now in receipt of responses to the R&R from (1) Lisa and Debra Mayer (the "Mayers"), petitioners in another related action, In re Mayer v. JP Morgan Secs., LLC, No. 12 Civ. 5240 (RJS) (the "Turnover Proceeding"); (2) J.P Morgan ..
More
ORDER
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge.
On May 30, 2013, Receiver lan Gazes submitted a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") regarding his investigation into the assets forfeited in the related case, United States v. Vilar, et al., No. 06 Cr. 621 (RJS). The Court is now in receipt of responses to the R&R from (1) Lisa and Debra Mayer (the "Mayers"), petitioners in another related action, In re Mayer v. JP Morgan Secs., LLC, No. 12 Civ. 5240 (RJS) (the "Turnover Proceeding"); (2) J.P Morgan Securities LLC, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff in the Turnover Proceeding; (3) Paul Marcus and Dr. Ronald Salvitti, Third-Party Defendants in the Turnover Proceeding; (4) the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); (5) Defendants;1 and (6) Alfred C. Heitkonig, John Preetzmann Aggerholm, Elna Heitkoenig, and Maaike Hickok, also Third-Party Defendants in the Turnover Proceeding.
Defendants, unfortunately, continue to take the untenable position that Defendant Tanaka — who was convicted on multiple counts of securities fraud — should be permitted to manage the forfeited assets for the benefit of both himself and his former investors. Absurd on its face, that position is particularly outrageous given that much of the delay in restoring the forfeited assets to their rightful owners is attributable to Defendants' conduct in this matter. Defendants' response to the R&R — a 19-page, single-spaced, at times incoherent hodge-podge of ad hominem accusation and conspiracy theory — sadly continues the trend of opposing all reasonable efforts to manage the forfeited assets and resolve this matter.
Except for Defendants, the responses to the R&R generally favor moving forward with the Receiver's recommendations. Because the Court agrees that the R&R proposes a prudent, expeditious course to resolving this litigation and restoring the forfeited assets to their rightful owners, the Court hereby adopts in their entirety the proposals set forth in the R&R and in the accompanying Order dated June 19, 2013. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Receiver shall begin the process of establishing a distribution fund and a claims and interim distribution procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Receiver shall update the Court by July 19, 2013 regarding the status of these activities. No distributions, however, shall be made without further order of the Court. While the Receiver is working to establish the distribution mechanisms, the Court will work in parallel to resolve the Turnover Proceeding.
SO ORDERED.
