§Why CasetextPricing

Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities L.L.C.

MEMORANDUM: In sum, the Court finds that the defendants' delay in bringing the current motion to withdraw the reference has not caused any prejudice that would outweigh the defendants' substantial interest in having an Article III court resolve any substantial issues of non-bankruptcy law. Accordingly, the Court finds that defendants have "timely" moved for withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157

13 Cited authorities

  1. In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.

    922 F.2d 984 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 482 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that withdrawal of the reference is not mandatory merely because a case "involves the routine application of a non-Bankruptcy Code federal statute"

  2. In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC

    654 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2011)   Cited 157 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the use of Trustee's proposed Net Investment Method, endorsed in Antecedent Debt Decision

  3. Picard v. Katz

    462 B.R. 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 61 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that section 546(e) “precludes the Trustee from bringing any action to recover from any of Madoff's customers any of the monies paid by Madoff Securities to those customers except in the case of actual fraud”

  4. Interconnect Telephone Services v. Farren

    59 B.R. 397 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986)   Cited 66 times
    Noting that the creditor in this action did not file a proof of claim or assert a set-off defense

  5. U.S. v. Kaplan

    146 B.R. 500 (D. Mass. 1992)   Cited 47 times
    Finding that timeliness is determined based on a review of the facts of the specific situation

  6. Picard v. Avellino

    469 B.R. 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 11 Civ. 3882 (JSR). No. 11 Civ. 4772 (JSR). No. 11 Civ. 4928 (JSR). No. 11 Civ. 6244 (JSR). No. 11 Civ. 5835 (JSR). 2012-02-29 Irving H. PICARD, Plaintiff, v. Frank J. AVELLINO et al., Defendants. Irving H. Picard, Plaintiff, v. Elins Family Trust et al., Defendants. Irving H. Picard, Plaintiff, v. Robert Greenberger and Phyllis Greenberger, Defendants. Irving H. Picard, Plaintiff, v. The M & B Weiss Family Limited Partnership et al., Defendants. Irving H. Picard, Plaintiff, v. Stanley Shapiro

  7. Picard v. Flinn Investment, LLC

    463 B.R. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    In Picard v. Flinn Invs., LLC, 463 B.R. 280 (S.D.N.Y.2011), numerous defendants moved to withdraw the reference to this Court on a variety of SIPA and other issues.

  8. Picard v. HSBC Bank PLC

    450 B.R. 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 13 times
    Finding that, because SIPA is part of the securities laws, “ substantial issue under SIPA is therefore, almost by definition, an issue ‘the resolution of [which] requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States' ”

  9. In re Gaston Snow

    173 B.R. 302 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    Explaining that "the two ‘catchall’ provisions, § 157(b) and (O )" "must not be read too broadly," lest they "obliterate the core/non-core distinction itself"

  10. Section 157 - Procedures

    28 U.S.C. § 157   Cited 51,380 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Determining the validity, extent, or priority of liens

  11. Section 1334 - Bankruptcy cases and proceedings

    28 U.S.C. § 1334   Cited 40,675 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Granting "exclusive jurisdiction" to a federal court handling a bankruptcy case "of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate"

  12. Section 502 - Allowance of claims or interests

    11 U.S.C. § 502   Cited 9,146 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Permitting summary adjudication or estimation of amounts due in bankruptcy claims adjudication

  13. Section 546 - Limitations on avoiding powers

    11 U.S.C. § 546   Cited 2,231 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Granting an administrative expense priority claim