1 12-816-cv Marsha Peshkin v. Jeanne Levy-Church, et al.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P** **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L** **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 21 st** **day of December, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **Chief Judge ,**  7 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 8 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 9 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **In re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment** 13 **Securities, LLC** 14

**-------------------------------------** 15 **MARSHA PESHKIN,** 16 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  17 18 **-v.- 12-816-cv** 19 20 **JEANNE LEVY-CHURCH; FRANCIS N. LEVY;** 21 **and IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee for the** 22 **Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff** 23 **Investment Securities LLC,** 24 **Defendants-Appellees**

**.** 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 26 272 **FOR APPELLANT:** Helen Davis Chaitman, Becker & 1 Poliakoff, LLP, New York, New 2 York. 3 4 **FOR APPELLEES JEANNE** 5 **LEVY-CHURCH AND FRANCIS** 6 **N. LEVY:** 7 8 9 10 11 **FOR APPELLEE IRVING H.** 12 **PICARD** : 13 14 Cary Bruce Lerman, (Dereck J. Kaufman, Melinda Eades Lemoine, Carl Holliday Moor, Fred Anthony Rowley on the brief ), Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, California.

David J. Sheehan, (Seanna R. Brown, on the brief ), Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York, New York.

15 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 16 Court for the Southern District of New York (Batts, J. ). 17 18 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 19 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 20 **AFFIRMED**

. 21 22 This is an appeal from a decision of the United States 23 District Court for the Southern District of New York (Batts, 24 J.) affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s (Lifland, J.) denial of 25 a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) in 26 proceedings related to the Bernard Madoff fraud. Marsha 27 Peshkin and a large group of other Madoff customers (“the 28 Customers”) moved to vacate the approval of a settlement 29 between the Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Bernard L. 30 Madoff Investment Securities, LLP (“BLMIS”) and the heirs of 31 Norman Levy, a large customer of BLMIS. The Customers argue 32 that the Trustee failed to disclose $100 billion of relevant 33 transactions between Levy and BLMIS before seeking approval 34 of the settlement. We assume the parties’ familiarity with 35 the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 36 presented for review. 37 38 We review a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of 39 discretion. SeeAczel v. Labonia , 584 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 40 2009) **. “**A district court would necessarily abuse its 41 discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of 42 the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the 43 evidence.” Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana
, 44 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks 453 omitted). “A motion for relief from judgment is generally 1 not favored and is properly granted only upon a showing of 2 exceptional circumstances.” United States v. Int’l Broth. 3 of Teamsters , 247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir. 2001). “We look 4 through the district court to the bankruptcy court’s 5 decision.” In re DBSD N. Am., Inc. , 634 F.3d 79, 94 (2d 6 Cir. 2011). We therefore “must review the bankruptcy 7 court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law 8 independently.” In re Vebeliunas , 332 F.3d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 9 2003). 10 11 1. The Customers cannot obtain relief under Rule 12 60(b)(2) because the Customers have not shown that the new 13 evidence was of “‘such importance that it probably would 14 have changed the outcome.’” Int’l Broth. of Teamsters , 247 15 F.3d at 392 (quoting United States v. IBT , 179 F.R.D. 444, 16 447 (S.D.N.Y.1998)). Because the $100 billion worth of 17 transactions were offsetting, they could not have altered 18 the possible exposure to liability of the Levy Heirs. 19 Further, the alleged $2 billion margin loan is premised 20 entirely on financial statements that this Court has already 21 deemed fictitious. SeeIn re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. 22 LLC , 654 F.3d 229, 234 (2d Cir. 2011). 23 24 2. As to the Rule 60(b)(3) motion, the $100 billion 25 offsetting transactions are irrelevant to the Levy Heirs’ 26 total exposure and the existence of the $2 billion margin 27 loan is speculative at best. The Customers therefore failed 28 to show “ clear and convincing evidence of material 29 misrepresentations.” Fleming v. N.Y. Univ. , 865 F.2d 478, 30 484 (2d Cir. 1989)

. 31 32 3. Rule 60(b)(6) is unavailable if, as here, the 33 motion is “premised on one of the grounds for relief 34 enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. 35 Health Services Acquisition Corp. , 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988)

. 36 37 For the foregoing reasons, we hereby **AFFIRM** the 38 judgment of the district court. 39 40 41 FOR THE COURT: 42 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 43 44