FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
VITALY IVANOVIC H SM AGIN,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lle e , v. ASHOT YEGIAZAR

Y AN, AKA Ashot Egia z ary an , R e sponde nt-Appe lla nt. Nos. 16-55502

16-56749 17-56467 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-09764-R -PLA C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , Los Ange le s ORDER
B e fore : R OGER S, * B YB EE, a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. The pa ne l judge s ha

ve vote d to de ny

Sm a gin’ s Pe tition for Re he aring. Judge s B y

be e and W a tford vote d to de ny the Pe tition for Re he aring En B anc , a nd Judge R oge rs re c om

m e nde d de ny ing the Pe tition for Re he aring En B anc . The full c ourt ha s be e n a dvise d of the pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc and no judge ha s re q

ue ste d a vote on whe the r to re he ar the m a tte r e n ba nc . Fe d. R . App. P. 35. 

# FIL ED JUL 31 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* The Honora

ble John M . R oge rs, Unite d State s C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Sm a gin’ s pe tition for re h e aring a n d pe tition for re he aring e n ba nc , file d July 2, 2018, is DENIED. Ye gia z ary an’ s M otion to M odify the M e m orandum

Disposition is GR ANTED. The M e m orandum

Disposition file d M ay

18, 2018 is a

m e n de d a s follows: 1. At pa ge 6, re pla c e “ On August 3, 2017,” with “ Sm a g in a l so sim ulta n e ously dom e s tic a t e d a

nd e nforc e d the Awa

rd in Lie c hte nste in a g a inst Ye gia z ary an’ s be ne fic ia

ry inte re st in Alpha

Trust, whic h is a

tta c he d a nd froz e n. That ruling is now on a

ppe a l. In c o nc urre nt, se pa ra te e n forc e m e n t proc e e dings
a ga inst Ye gia z a

ry an’ s n o n-be ne

fic iary inte re sts,” 2. At pa ge 6, re pla c e “ issue d a de c i sion, finding tha

t ” with “ issue d a de c ision on August 3, 2017. The Lie c hte nste in lowe r c ourt ha d found tha t” 3. At pa ge 6, de le te “ The C ourt of Appe a l c o nc lude d tha t” 4. At pa ge 7, inse rt “ B ut the C ourt of Appe a ls re je c te d Sm a gin’ s e ffort to
a tta c h Ye gia z ary an’ s non-be ne fic ia ry inte re sts.” be fore the se nte nc e be ginning

“ R e ly ing on this ruling,” 5. At pa ge 7, re pla c e “ grante d Sm a gin a fre e z e orde r on the Alpha Trust pe nding his a

ppe a l” with “ grante d Sm a gin a sta y of its August 2017 ruling, pe nding a ppe a l ”
2No future pe titions for pa ne l re he aring a

nd re he aring e n ba

nc sha ll be
e nte rta ine d.

3N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VITALY IVANOVIC H SM AGIN,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lle e , v. ASHOT YEGIAZAR

Y AN, AKA Ashot Egia z ary an , R e sponde nt-Appe lla nt. Nos. 16-55502

16-56749 17-56467

D.C . No. 2:14-c v-09764-R -PLA AM ENDED M EM O R ANDUM * Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 11, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R OGER S, ** B YB EE, a nd WA TFORD, C i rc uit Judge s. In an a rbitra tion be t we e n Vita ly Sm a gin a nd Ashot Ye gia z ary an, the London C ourt of Inte rna tiona l Arbitra tion a warde d Sm a gin a

bout $72 mi llion in da

m a ge s 

# FIL ED JUL 31 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble John M . R oge rs, Unite d State s C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.plus a

bout $20 million in inte

re st a nd fe e s (“ the Awa

rd” ). The Awa

rd wa s
c onfirm e d, a

n d Ye gia z ary a

n ra ise s no substa

ntive c h a lle nge to the c o nfirm a tion. Thre e orde rs by

the distric t c ourt a

re a t issue in the se c onsolida te d a ppe a ls: (1) a

n orde r of a ttorne y s’ fe e s a ga inst Ye gia z ary an; (2) a postjudgm e n t injunc tion a ga inst Ye gia z ary an fre e z ing som e $115 m illion; a nd (3) a turnove r orde r a ga inst Ye gia z ary an re ga

rding a Lie c hte nste in trust tha

t is now the subje c t

of ongoing proc e e dings in the

Lie c hte nste i n c ourts. Ye gia z ary an a ppe a ls thosethre e rulings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e pre sum e the pa

rtie s’ fa m ilia

rity with the fa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history
. 1. Attorne y s’ Fe e s W e re vie w a

n im position of a

ttorne y s’ fe e s for a

buse of disc re tion. Primus Auto. Fin. Se rv ., Inc . v . Batarse , 115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th C ir. 1997). W he re a c ourt orde rs the pa

ym e nt of a

ttorne y s’ fe e s without identify ing the ba sis for its a uthority , we pre sum e it a c te d unde r its inhe re nt powe rs, i d. , whic h re quire s “ m ak[ing] an
e xplic it finding tha

t c ounse l’ s c onduc t c onstitute d or wa s ta nta m ount to ba d fa ith,” id. (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d); Fink v . Gome z , 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th C i r. 2001) (“ [A] spe c i fic finding of ba d fa i th . . . m

ust pre c e de any
sa nc tion unde r the c ourt’ s inhe re nt powe rs.” ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

t ion m arks
om i tte d); se e also Goody e ar Tire & Rubbe r C

o. v . Hae ge r , 137 S. C t. 1178, 1186 2(2017). The s e sta nda rds he lp e nsure tha

t attorne y s’ fe e s a

re orde re d “ only in
e xc e ptiona l c a se s a

n d for dom inating re a sons of justic e . ” Be audry Motor C o. v . Abk o Props., Inc
. , 780 F.2d 751, 756 (9th C ir. 1986) (c i tation om itte d). The distric t c o urt gra

n te d Sm a gin’ s re que st for a ttorne y ’ s fe e s without e nte ring a ny finding on ba d fa ith. This wa s a n a buse of disc re t ion. W e va c a te the award of attorne y s’ fe e s a nd re m and for the distric t c ourt to
re c o nside r the aw ard unde r the a ppropria te sta nda rd. If the distric t c ourt e nte rs a n
award of attorne y s’ fe e s, it sha l l sta te the sourc e of its a

uthority and e nte r de ta ile d findings of fa c t

se tt ing forth theba sis for its a ward. Se e Primus , 115 F.3d a t 648. 2. Postjudgm e nt Injunc tion The distric t c ourt e n te re d judgm e nt for Sm a g i n on M arc h 31, 2016. On Oc tobe r 13, 2016, Sm a gin sought e x pa rte e m e rge nc y

postjudgm e nt injunc tive
re lie f, ide ntify ing a C a l ifornia sta te c ourt a sse t fre e z e in unre late d fa m ily la w proc e e dings involving Ye g ia z ary an tha t wa s to e xpire the ne xt da y . The sta

te c ourt
a sse t fre e z e re stra i ne d Ye g ia z ary an from tra nsfe rring or dissipa

ting m o n ie s he
re c e ive d a s a

n a w ard from

the unre late d “ K e rim ov” arbitration. Those funds we re
a lle ge dly pla c e d in a

M one ga sque ba

nk a c c ount he ld by

the “ Alpha

Trust,” whic h Ye gia z ary an form e d unde r Lie c hte nste in la w in 2015 in a

ntic i pation of re c e ipt of the K e rim ov funds. Dr. Thoma s W ilhe lm of C TX Tre uha

nd AG se rve s a s Truste e 3of the Alpha Trust, a nd Ye gia z ary an e njoy s va rious rights a s Prote c tor, Se ttlor, Asse t M ana ge r, and B e ne fic ia ry . The distric t c ourt found tha t Sm a gin would be

“ le ft without prote c tion from M r. Ye gia z ary an’ s duplic i ty ,” in light of e vide nc e of Ye gia z ary an’ s pra c t ic e of m oving a nd c onc e a ling a sse t s, a

nd so the c ourt orde re d that he and those unde r his c ontrol re fra in from any a c tion to “ transfe r, a s sign,
c onc e a l , dim inish, e nc um be r, hy pothe c a te , or dissipa

te or in a ny wa y dispose of” the K e rim ov funds. Ye g ia z ary an a p pe a ls. The pa le tte of re m e d i e s a

va ila ble to a c ourt is a

produc t of tha

t c ourt’ s jurisdic tion. He re , Sm a g in brought a Pe tition to C onfirm

the Awa rd a ga i nst Ye gia z ary an in C a lifornia , whe re Ye gia z ary an now live s. W he re a distric t c ourt
e xe rc ise s in pe rsona

m jurisdic tion ove r a judgm e n t de btor a nd whe re it ide n tifie s a
re a l risk tha

t without injunctive re lie f, the judgm e nt de btor m ight dissipa te or
se c re t a way funds, c ourts ha

ve uphe ld na

rrowly ta ilore d postjudgme nt re m e dia l
m e a sure s of this sort unde r its “ anc illa

ry e nforc e m e nt jurisdic tion.” Pe ac oc k v . Thomas , 516 U.S. 349, 356 (1996); Ex parte Flippin , 94 U.S. 348, 350 (1876) (“ Proc e ss subse que n t to judgm e nt is a s e s se ntia l to jurisdic tion a s proc e ss a nte rior to judgm e nt, e l se the judic ia l powe r would be inc om p le te and e n t ire l y ina de quate to the purpose s for whic h it wa s c onfe rre d by the C onstitution.” ) (c ita

tion om itte d);
se e H ilao v . Estate

of Marc os , 95 F.3d 848, 854–55 & n.11 (9th C ir. 1996) (noting 4c a se s tha

t “ uphe ld the use of c onte m pt in thee nforc e m e nt of m one y judgm e nts” whe re “ sta

t e la w a llowe d tha

t proc e dure ” ); Se c . Tr. & Sav
. Bank v . S. Pac . R. C

o. , 6 C a l. App. 2d 585, 589 (C a l. C t. App. 1935) (“ T he powe r to e nforc e the ir de c re e s is ne c e ssa rily inc ide nt to thejurisdic tion of c ourts. W ithout suc h powe r, a de c re e would in m any

c a se s be use le ss. All c ourts ha ve this powe r, a

nd m ust ne c e ssa

rily have it; othe rwise the y

c ould not prote c t

the m se lve s from

insult, or e nforc e obe die nc e to the ir proc e s s. W ithout it the y would be utte rly

powe rle ss.” ) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion om itte d). C e rta inly this powe r is to be e xe rc ise d c are fully
. Se e Hilao , 95 F.3d a t 855 (noting tha

t e ve n in light of (1) the

la rge “ siz e of the judgm e nt” of ne arly $2 billion; (2) the “ prom ine n t figure s” a s litiga nts; (3) thedista

nt loc a t ion of a sse ts;
and (4) the “ unc oope ra tive ne ss of the judgm e n t de btor,” suc h a re not “ e xc e p tiona l
c irc um s ta nc e s . . . tha

t would justify

a fe de ra l c ourt’ s use of a

proc e dure othe r tha

n
a writ of e xe c ution to e nforc e a m one y judgm e n t” ). He re the distric t c o urt ide n tifie d a

c l e ar, c a se -spe c i fic risk tha t Ye gia z a ry an m ight e va de the c ourt’ s jurisdic tion or c ontra

v e ne its judgm e nt by

funne ling the Ke rim o v funds through a

5re shuffle d de c k of she ll c om

pa n ie s a nd ba nk a c c ounts a c ross the C aribbe an, C y prus, M ona c o, Lie c h te nste in, or wha te ve r othe r a m ic a

ble have ns he finds. 1 W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s postjudgme nt injunc tion. 3. Turnove r Orde r Sm a gin a lso sim

ulta ne ously dom e s tic a te d a

nd e nforc e d

the Awa rd in Lie c hte nste in a ga inst Ye gia z a ry an’ s be ne fic ia

ry inte re st in Alpha

Trust, whic h is
a tta c h e d and froz e n. Tha

t ruling is now on a

ppe a l. In c onc urre nt, se pa ra t e
e nforc e m e nt proc e e dings a ga inst Ye gia z a ry an’ s non-be ne

fic i ary i nte re sts, the Princ e ly C ourt of Appe a l of the Princ ipa lity of Lie c hte nste in (the “ Lie c hte n ste in C ourt of Appe a l” ) issue d a de c ision on August 3, 2017. The Lie c hte nste in lowe r
c ourt ha d found tha

t unde r the De c la

ra tion of Trust, Ye gia z ary an wa s sole

“ Se ttlor,” sole “ Prote c tor,” sole “ B e ne fic i ary ,” and sole “ Asse t M a n a g e r” with

“ e xpre ssly

tra nsfe ra ble ” so-c a lle d prote c tor rights, a nd a n “ a l l-e nc om

pa ssing position of powe

r” and “ ve to right.” Ye gia z ary an “ ha d not re a lly give n up his
a sse ts,” be c a

use he “ dire c te d a

nd c ontrolle d the e ntire m ana ge m e nt of Alpha Trust

1 W e a lso re

je c t Ye gia z ary an’ s c la im that the injunc tion c onstitute s a viola tion of his due

proc e ss rights be c a

u se it fre e z e s som e $20 m i llion m ore tha n the a m ount of thejudgm e nt. Ye gia z ary an ha d fa ir notic e tha t injunc tive re l ie f of this form c ould issuewhe n

Sm a gin first a

pplie d for suc h on Se pte m be r 16, 2015. Although high in a

bsolute te rm s, it a

p pe ars to be a

re a sona ble and m e a sure d c ushion tha

t e xte nds by

its te rm s only

to Ye gia z ary an’ s and his a ge nts’ a c tions visà -vis the Ke rim ov funds. 6(form a lly

a lso) due to his position a s prote c tor, for tha t position a

llowe d him a t his sole disc re tion to a

ppoint or re m ove the truste e without a ny re a son, a nd the e ntire
m ana ge m e nt of the trust by the truste e re quire d the prior e xpre ss c onse n t of the prote c tor.” Smagin v . Ye

giazary an , e t

al
. , 08 EX.2016.5802, Orde r No. 36 (Princ e ly C ourt of Appe a l Aug. 3, 2017) (Lie c h t.). B ut the C ourt of Appe a ls
re je c te d Sm a gin’ s e ffort to a tta c h Ye gia z ary an’ s non-be ne fic ia ry inte re s ts. R e ly ing on this ruling, Sm

a gin a p plie d to the distric t c ourt for a turnove r orde r unde r C a lifornia la w, se e king a

n orde r c o m

m anding Ye gia z ary an to turn ove r the a sse ts of the Alpha

Trust. The distric t c ourt issue d the turnove r orde r on Se pte m be r 20, 2017, noting tha

t the C a lifornia

Enforc e m e nt of Judgm e nts La w pe rm its a judgm e nt c re ditor with a writ of e xe c ution to obta in a turnove r orde r, whic h sha ll be issue d upon “ a

showing of ne e d for the orde r,” for whic h a re fusa l to pa

y a judgm e nt qua lifie s. C A L . C I V . P R O C . C O D E § 699.040(b). The distric t c ourt furthe r he ld tha t suc h an orde r m ay

e xpa nd to a ll of “ the de btor’ s inte re st in theprope rty in the p osse ssion or unde r the c o ntrol of the judgm e nt de btor or a third pe rson” without lim

it a s to prope rty

ty pe or loc a t ion, be c a

use the c o urt’ s jurisdic tion is over Ye gia z ary an him se lf. In Nove m be r 2017, the Lie c hte nste in C ourt of Appe a l gran te d Sm a gin a sta

y of its August 2017 ruling, pe nding a p pe a l to the Princ e ly Supre m e C ourt of Lie c hte nste in. 7The pa rtie s disputewhe t

he r a turnove r orde r unde r C a lifornia la w m ay prope rly re a c h a s se ts suc h a s those he ld in theAlpha Trust. Unde r C a lifornia

la w,
a turnove r orde r is a

postjudgm e nt c re ditor’ s re m e dy , ava i la ble a fte r a writ of
e xe c ution is issue d tha

t dire c ts the de btor to tra

n sfe r spe c ifie d prope rty

to a le vy ing offic e r unde r pe na lty

of c onte m

pt. C A L . C I V . P R O C . C O D E § 699.040. It is a broa d
re m e dy that c an

re a c h p rope rty

unde r the c o ntrol of the judgm e n t de b t or or a third pa rty . Id. § 699.080(a). B ut C a lifornia la w e xc lude s the inte re sts of trust be ne fic ia rie s from e xe c ution. Id. § 699.720 (“ The inte re st of a trust be ne fic ia

ry [is not] . . . subje c t to e x e c ution.” ). Inste a d, C a lifornia la w provide s for a

spe c ific
m e c ha nism , a § 709.010 pe t ition, whic h c an be use d to se e k e nforc e m e nt of a judgm e nt a ga inst a

be ne fic ia ry ’ s inte re st in a

trust: [A] judgm e nt de btor’ s inte re st a s a be ne fic ia ry of a trust is subje c t to e nforc e m e nt of a

m o n e y judgm e nt only

upon pe tition under [§ 709.010] by a judgm e nt c re ditor to a

c ourt ha ving jurisdic tion ove r a dm inistra tion of the trust. Id. § 709.010(b). “ B y

its pla i n te rm s, the e nforc e m e nt proc e dure s of C ode of C ivil Proc e d ure se c tion 709.010 a

re the only m e ans a

va ila ble for a judgm e nt c re ditor to
e nforc e a m one y judgm e nt a ga inst [a

be ne fic i a l] inte re st in a

trust.” FirstMe rit Bank , N
. A. v . Re e se , 242 C a l. App. 4th 408, 412 (C a l. C t. App. 2015). This is be c a use “ the [C a lifornia ] Le gisla ture spe c ific a lly

e xc lude d inte re st in a

trust from le vy by writ of e xe c ution.” Id. ; se e also Pratt v. Fe rguson , 3 C a l . App. 5th 102, 8116 (C a l. C t. App. 2016) (“A lie n on a judgm e nt de b tor’ s inte re st in a trust m ust be sought by m e ans of a

pe tition file d in the c ourt ha ving jurisdic tion ove r
a dm inistra

tion of thetrust.” ). The pa rtie s’ litiga

ting positions thus c e nte r on the que stion of whe the r Ye gia z a ry an’ s c ontrol ove r the Alpha Trust re nde rs it outside the t e rm s of § 709.010 a

nd thus a prope r subje c t of a turnove r orde r. W e find a turnove r orde r pre m ature he re , and we va c a te the distric t c o urt’ s orde r unde r princ iple s of inte rnationa l c om i ty , tha t is, “ t he re c o gnition whic h one
nation a llows within its te rritory to the le gisla

tive , e x e c u tive or judic ia l a c ts of
anothe r nation, ha

ving due re g ard both to interna tiona l duty and c onve nie nc e , a

nd to the rights of its own c i tiz e ns or of othe r pe rsons who a re unde r the prote c tion of its la ws.” Mujic a v . AirSc an Inc
. , 771 F.3d 580, 597 (9th C ir. 2014) (c ita tion

9om i tte d). 2 W e e x e rc i se he re “ a djudic a tory c om i ty ,” that is, “ disc re tion of a
nationa l c ourt to de c line to e xe rc ise jurisdic tion ove r a c a se be fore it whe n tha

t
c a se is pe nding in a

fore i gn c ourt with prope r jurisdic tion.” Id. a t 599 (quota tion
om i tte d). Sm a gin is c orre c t tha

t the C onve ntion on the

R e c ognition a

n d Enforc e m e nt of Fore i gn Arbitra l Awa

rds, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38, 9 U.S.C . § 201 (“

Ne w York C onve ntion” ) doe s pre suppose pa ra lle l e nforc e m e nt proc e e dings globally . B ut he re , the re me dial m e a sure orde re d by

the distric t c ourt ha s pre c ipita

te d the pote n t ia l c onflic t , a s it is pre m ise d on the distric t c ourt’ s
re solution of que stions of Lie c hte nste i n trust la w tha t a re c urre ntly pe nding re vie w

2 W e c hoose not to re ly

on the doc trine of prior e xc lusive jurisdic tion, se e Princ e ss Lida of Thurn &

Tax is v . Thompson , 305 U.S. 456, 466–68 (1939), be c a use the turnove r orde r m andate d tha t Ye gia z a ry an ta ke an a c tion in his pe rsonal c a

pa c ity on the ba sis of the c o urt’ s in pe rsona m jurisdic tion. Unde r the “ m andatory ” Princ e

ss Lida rule , se e C

hapman v . De u tsc he Bank N at’l Trust C

o ., 651 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th C ir. 2011), a c ourt c annot ta

ke jurisdic tion ove r a

trust, ove r whic h a

diffe re nt c ourt ha s a lre a dy e xe rc ise d jurisdic tion. Se e Princ e ss Lida , 305 U.S. a

t 466. He re , the Lie c hte nste in c ourts first a sse rte d jurisdic tion ove r the Alpha Trust in Fe b urary

2016 whe n

Sm a gin brought suit in Lie c hte nste in, a bout six m onths be fore Sm a gin brought the Alpha Trust to the

distric t c ourt’ s atte ntion. Se e Pe nn Ge ne ral C

as. C o. v . Pe nnsy lv ania e

x re l. Sc hnade r , 294 U.S. 189, 196 (1935). B ut give n the c ourt’ s pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r Ye gia z ary an, a nd give n that he holds intere sts a

nd pe rform s func tions vis-à -vis the Alpha Trust distinc t from his inte re st a s B e ne fic i ary , we re fra i n from answe ring a

t this time whe the r Ye gia z ary an c an be orde re d by turnove r orde r to ta

k e som e a c tion in his c a

pa c ity a s Se ttlor, Prote c tor, Asse t M ana ge r, or othe rwise
. Se e , e .g. , K n ae f le r v . Mac k, 680 F.2d 671, 675 (9th C ir. 1982). 1 0by

the Supre m e C ourt of Lie c hte nste in. The Lie c hte nste in Supre m e C ourt c an be
e xpe c te d to re solve som e if not a ll of the que stions a t issue in this c a se . Out of
re spe c t for the Lie c h te nste in C o urt of Justic e ’ s jurisdic tion ove r the Alpha Trust in this c a s e , a

n d in c onside ra tion of theprinc iple s of le ga l pra gm a tism an d e ffic ie nc y
e m bodie d in inte rna tiona l c om i ty , we va c a te the turnove r orde r. 4. R e a ssignm e nt W e de ny Ye g ia z ary an’ s re que st tha t the c a se be re a s signe d to a diffe re nt distric t judge on re m and, se e 28 U.S.C . § 2106, a s we find a b se nt the “ unusua l
c irc um s ta nc e s ” tha t m e rit re a ssignm e nt. Earp v . C ulle n , 623 F.3d 1065, 1071

– 72 (9th C ir. 2010); Unite d State s v . Atondo-Santos , 385 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th C ir. 2004). * * * W e va c a te the award of attorne y s’ fe e s; we a ffirm the postjudgm e nt injunc tion a ga inst Ye gia z ary an; we va c a te the turnove r orde r; a nd we de ny Ye gia z ary an’ s re que s t for re a ssignm e n t on re m and. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir
own c osts in the se c onsolida te d a ppe a l s. AFFIRM E D in pa

rt, V ACAT E D in pa

rt, a nd RE M ANDE D
.

1 1