Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91629096/Stanford-Advisory-of-Objections
Timestamp: 2015-05-29 15:03:05
Document Index: 746668892

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 307', '§ 363', '§ 502', '§ 507', '§ 726', '§ 1102', '§ 1104', '§ 1520', '§ 1532']

P. 1Stanford - Advisory of ObjectionsStanford - Advisory of ObjectionsRatings: (0)|Views: 3,453|Likes: 0Published by Catherine BurnellGrant Thornton Advisory of ObjectionsGrant Thornton Advisory of ObjectionsMore info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Catherine Burnell on Apr 28, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/91629096/Stanford-Advisory-of-Objections04/28/2012pdftextoriginal JOINT LIQUIDATORS’ ADVISORY OF OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER’S AMENDED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER (I)ESTABLISHING BAR DATE FOR CLAIMS; (II) APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE THEREOF; AND (III) APPROVINGPROOF OF CLAIM AND RELATED FORMS AND PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING PROOFS OF CLAIM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONIn re:STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK,LTD.,Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding.§§§§§§Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-0721-N
JOINT LIQUIDATORS' ADVISORY OF OBJECTIONS TORECEIVER'S AMENDED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER(I) ESTABLISHING BAR DATE FOR CLAIMS; (II) APPROVING FORM ANDMANNER OF NOTICE THEREOF; AND (III) APPROVING PROOF OF CLAIM ANDRELATED FORMS AND PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING PROOFS OF CLAIM
Case 3:09-cv-00721-N Document 158 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 29 PageID 12842
JOINT LIQUIDATORS’ ADVISORY OF OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER’S AMENDED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER (I)ESTABLISHING BAR DATE FOR CLAIMS; (II) APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE THEREOF; AND (III) APPROVINGPROOF OF CLAIM AND RELATED FORMS AND PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING PROOFS OF CLAIM
Establishment of a Claims Process in the SEC Receivership isPremature Prior to a Ruling on the JLs' Petition Under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code
II. Duplicate Claims Processes Will Lead to Unnecessary Expense andDepletion of Funds Available for Distribution
III. The Procedures Proposed in the Receiver's Claims Motion AreInefficient, Ineffective, and Inappropriate
IV. The Receivership, as a Failed Estate, is Ill-Equipped to Administerthe Claims Process
Case 3:09-cv-00721-N Document 158 Filed 04/20/12 Page 2 of 29 PageID 12843
In re Augie/Restivo Baking Co., Ltd .,860 F.2d 515 (2d Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................8
,229 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2000).....................................................................................................8
,419 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2005).......................................................................................................7
,584 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2009).................................................................................................7-8
11 U.S.C. § 307................................................................................................................................911 U.S.C. § 363................................................................................................................................911 U.S.C. § 502(d).........................................................................................................................1111 U.S.C. § 507..............................................................................................................................1011 U.S.C. § 726..............................................................................................................................1011 U.S.C. § 1102..............................................................................................................................911 U.S.C. § 1104..............................................................................................................................911 U.S.C. § 1520..............................................................................................................................311 U.S.C. § 1532..............................................................................................................................3
Bankruptcy Rule 2002.....................................................................................................................9Bankruptcy Rule 3001...................................................................................................................10Diana Henriques,
...................................................................................................15Munday, Oliver,
the American Lawyer, (Oct. 2011).............................................14
Case 3:09-cv-00721-N Document 158 Filed 04/20/12 Page 3 of 29 PageID 12844
Similar to Stanford - Advisory of ObjectionsZelaya v. USA Mot to DismissCatherine BurnellSecond Report of the Joint Liquidators Grant ThorntonCatherine BurnellSEC/SIPC Stipulations for Stanford Group Company CustomersStanford Victims CoalitionSentencing StanfordCatherine BurnellSEC Reply Memo in Support of Application for Order to SIPC to Liquidate Stanford Group Company under SIPAStanford Victims Coalitionhlt stanfJeff BairGrant Thornton Response to Angela Shaw's QuestionsCatherine BurnellVictims' Rights re: June 14, 2012 Sentencing of R. Allen StanfordStanford Victims CoalitionSGC SAS BrochureStanford Victims Coalition
More From This User3rd Schedule Re Interim PlanCatherine BurnellDoc.1903 1stSchedulereInterimPlanCatherine BurnellDoc1889_OSIC_ReportReMembership_070813Catherine BurnellOrder Approving Receivers Interim Distribution PlanCatherine Burnell2013.05.24.SEC.replyBriefCatherine BurnellThe SEC's Civil Action Against StanfordCatherine BurnellReceiver Report April-2013Catherine Burnell1773 Fifth Interim Report Status of Receivership Asset Collection and ActivitiesCatherine BurnellAmnd Mtn for Approval of Settlement AgreementCatherine BurnellUS Receiver First Interim Distribution Certification NoticeCatherine BurnellMotion for Approval of Interim DistributionCatherine BurnellAmended Scheduling OrderCatherine BurnellZelaya Order MTDCatherine BurnellFourth Interim Report Status CollectionCatherine BurnellSentencing StanfordCatherine BurnellGrant Thornton Response to Angela Shaw's QuestionsCatherine BurnellLtr to Reynolds Doj 001Catherine BurnellSEC Motion to DismissCatherine BurnellZelaya Opposition to Motion to DismissCatherine BurnellZelaya vs USA Opposition to MTDCatherine BurnellZelaya v. USA Mot to DismissCatherine BurnellStanford IndictmentCatherine BurnellSecond Report of the Joint Liquidators Grant ThorntonCatherine BurnellComplaint Docket StampedCatherine Burnell
RecommendedZelaya v. USA Mot to DismissCatherine BurnellZelaya v. USA Mot to DismissSecond Report of the Joint Liquidators Grant ThorntonCatherine BurnellSecond Report of the Joint Liquidators Grant ThorntonSEC/SIPC Stipulations for Stanford Group Company CustomersStanford Victims CoalitionFiled March 5, 2012 in the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.Sentencing StanfordCatherine BurnellUnited States Sentencing MemorandumSEC Reply Memo in Support of Application for Order to SIPC to Liquidate Stanford Group Company under SIPAStanford Victims CoalitionCase 1:11-mc-00678-RLW Document 25 Filed 02/23/12 Page 1 of 32 UNITED S...hlt stanfJeff BairStanford Financial executive plea agreement.Grant Thornton Response to Angela Shaw's QuestionsCatherine BurnellGrant Thornton Response to Angela Shaw's QuestionsVictims' Rights re: June 14, 2012 Sentencing of R. Allen StanfordStanford Victims CoalitionJudge David Hittner's order re: victims' rights to be heard at the June 14, 2...SGC SAS BrochureStanford Victims CoalitionPrevious|NextPage 1 of 3