Court Opinion

ID: 9952478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 20:09:28.351385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:59.280305
License: Public Domain

Glenmede Trust Co., N.A. v Infinity Q Capital Mgt.
                          LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30809(U)
                     March 13, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 160830/2022
                 Judge: Melissa A. Crane
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 P~                                                                     INDEX NO. 160830/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 208                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

                                    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                              NEW YORK COUNTY
              PRESENT:            HON. MELISSA A. CRANE                                            PART                             SOM
                                                                                        Justice
              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
                                                                                                   INDEX NO.         160830/2022
               THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
                                                                                                   MOTION DATE        11/16/2023
                                                          Plaintiff,
                                                                                                   MOTION SEQ. NO.        013
                                                  - V -

               INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC,JAMES
               VELISSARIS, LEONARD POTTER, SCOTT LINDELL,
               SONDERMAN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LP,
               INFINITY Q MANAGEMENT EQUITY LLC,TRUST FOR
               ADVISED PORTFOLIOS, U.S. BANCORP FUND                                                 DECISION + ORDER ON
               SERVICES, LLC,EISNERAMPER LLP, QUASAR                                                       MOTION
               DISTRIBUTORS, LLC,JOHN C. CHRYSTAL, ALBERT J.
               DIULIO, CHRISTOPHER E. KASHMERICK, HARRY E.
               RESIS, RUSSELL B. SIMON, STEVEN J. JENSEN,

                                                          Defendant.
             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

             The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 013) 142, 143, 144, 145,
             146, 152, 157, 162, 181
             were read on this motion to/for                                                        DISMISSAL

                       Defendant Scott Lindell ("Lindell") has moved to dismiss Plaintiff The Glenmede Trust

             Company, N.A.'s ("Glenmede" or "Plaintiff') amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7).

             The amended complaint alleges causes of action against Lindell for violation of sections 11 and

             15 of the Securities Act of 1933. For the following reasons, the court dismisses both causes of

             action against Lindell.

                                          FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

                       This matter arises in connection to the collapse of a mutual fund called Infinity Q

             Diversified Alpha Fund ("Mutual Fund"). Defendant Infinity Q Capital Management ("Infinity Q

             Mgmt.") managed the Mutual Fund, selecting the Mutual Fund's portfolio of investments

             (Amended Complaint, NYSCEF Doc. No. 101, ,r,r 28, 54). Individual defendants Lindell, James

              160830/2022 THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. vs. INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT                         Page 1 of 10
              LLC ET AL
              Motion No. 013

[* 1]                                                                      1 of 10
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 P~                                                                     INDEX NO. 160830/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 208                                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

             Velissaris ("Velissaris") and Leonard Potter ("Potter") launched Infinity Q Mgmt. in 2014 with

             non-party David Bonderman ("Bonderman"), allegedly to act as investment advisor for both the

             Mutual Fund and a separate private hedge fund ("Hedge Fund") (id., ,i 4). Rather than stock the

             Mutual Fund with traditional stocks and bonds, Infinity Q Mgmt. purchased variance swaps as part

             of its strategy to "generate absolute returns that did not depend on what direction the market

             moved, but rather on how much the market moved (i.e., how volatile the market was)" (id., ,i 5). 1

             These types of securities had no readily available market prices (id., ,i 7). Therefore, Infinity Q

             Mgmt. had to generate its own net asset value ("NA V") of the assets in the Mutual Fund on a daily

             basis (id., ,i,i 6-7). Infinity Q Mgmt. generated this NAV using the third-party valuation service

             Bloomberg offered, called BVAL (id., ,i 131 ). However, for many years, Velissaris managed to

             inflate artificially the value of the Mutual Fund by hundreds of millions of dollars (id., ,i,i 9-11 ).

             This resulted in an SEC investigation beginning in 2020 and the subsequent collapse of the Mutual

             Fund (id., ,i,i 11-13).

                      US Bank allegedly has established multiple series trusts as part of its mutual fund business,

             of which Defendant Trust for Advised Portfolios ("Trust") is one (id., ,i,i 64, 67). The Trust

             established the Mutual Fund under its umbrella (id., ,i 69). As is relevant for this motion, the Trust

             issued shares in the Mutual Fund pursuant to a Post-Effective Amendment to its Registration

             Statement on December 20, 2019 ("December 2019 Registration Statement") (id., ,i 142).

             Defendant Christopher Kashmerick signed the December 2019 Registration Statement as the

             President and Principal Executive Officer of the Trust (December 2019 Registration Statement,

             NYSCEF Doc. 127, p. 118). A number of other individuals signed the December 2019 Registration

             1
               According to the amended complaint, variance swaps allow buyers to "bet on the volatility of an underlying asset,
             security, index, or currency exchange" (see Amended Complaint, ,i 116). For each variance swap, the parties
             determine a "strike price" (id., ,i 118). If volatility "exceeds the strike price, the buyer of the swap ... receives the
             payment," but if volatility "is below the strike price, the seller of the swap ... receives the payment" (id.).
              160830/2022 THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. vs. INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT                        Page 2 of 10
              LLC ET AL
              Motion No. 013

                                                                    2 of 10
[* 2]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 P~                                                    INDEX NO. 160830/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 208                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

             Statement, including Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer Russell Simon and Mutual Fund

             trustees John Chrystal, Albert DiUlio, and Harry Resis (id.; Amended Complaint, ,r,r 37-40).

             Potter, Velissaris, and non-party Director Neil Gray all signed on behalf of non-party Infinity Q

             Commodity Fund, Ltd. (December 2019 Registration Statement, p. 119). Despite the amended

             complaint alleging that Lindell was one of the multiple defendants who "signed or authorized the

             signing of the December 2019 Securities Act Filing and/or[] otherwise actively participated in the

             sales process" (Amended Complaint, ,r 297), Lindell did not sign the December 2019 Registration

             Statement (see December 2019 Registration Statement, pp. 118-119). Nor did Lindell "consent[]

             to having been named as the person[] who prepared or certified parts of the December 2019

             Securities Act Filing" anywhere in the document or its exhibits (see Amended Complaint, ,r 274;

             December 2019 Registration Statement). The focal point of Plaintiff's case against Lindell and the

             other defendants is that the December 2019 Registration Statement "contained false statements of

             material fact and/or omitted material facts that were required to be disclosed or necessary to make

             the statements therein not misleading" (Amended Complaint, ,r 270).

                    Aside from his alleged role in the execution of the December 2019 Registration Statement,

             Plaintiff alleges that Lindell was the "Chief Risk Officer ('CRO'), head of operations, Chief

             Compliance Officer, a portfolio manager, and a member of the valuation committee oflnfinity Q

             Mgmt. (id., ,r 30). According to the amended complaint, Lindell, despite being in a position to

             learn ofVelissaris's fraud, ignored red flags. In particular, Plaintiff alleges that Infinity Q Mgmt.,

             as a result of Velissaris improperly adjusting inputs to BVAL, reported valuations on variance

             swaps that were mathematically impossible (id., ,r,r 204-206). Infinity Q allegedly reported

             valuations high enough that volatility would have needed to be negative for the remainder of the

             term, which is not possible (id., ,r 205). The amended complaint alleges that Mutual Fund Treasurer

              160830/2022 THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. vs. INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT        Page 3 of 10
              LLC ET AL
              Motion No. 013

                                                           3   of 10
[* 3]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 P~                                                    INDEX NO. 160830/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 208                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

             and CFO Russell Simon asked Lindell in an email about one instance of a mathematically

             impossible valuation, and Lindell failed to provide a satisfactory response (id., ,i 208).

                     Plaintiff also alleges that Lindell "noticed that there were inputs in BVAL that were

             inconsistent with the term sheets," that he "reviewed the counterparty marks that were different

             from Infinity Q [Mgmt.]'s marks," and that he "recognized a trend whereby Infinity Q [Mgmt.J's

             final valuations of variance swaps upon settlement dropped drastically from Velissaris's interim

             valuations (id., ,i 214). Despite being aware of these red flags related to Infinity Q [Mgmt.]'s

             valuations, Lindell allegedly "turned a blind eye to Velissaris's manipulated valuations" (id., ,i

             215).

                     After the Mutual Fund collapsed in March 2021, shareholders filed class action lawsuits

             related to the collapse of the Mutual Fund, and the parties reached a settlement that the court

             preliminarily approved on October 17, 2022 (In re Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund Securities

             Litig., Index No. 651295/2021, NYSCEF Doc. No. 181 ). The court then held a final approval

             hearing on June 14, 2023. Plaintiff determined to opt out of the class action settlement and filed

             the complaint in this action on December 19, 2022 (Complaint, NYSCEF Doc. No. 2). Defendants,

             including Lindell, then moved to dismiss. However, on May 3, 2023, after Plaintiff informed

             Defendants that it intended to amend its complaint as of right, Defendants, including Lindell,

             stipulated to withdraw their pending motions to dismiss (Stipulation Withdrawing Motions to

             Dismiss, NYSCEF Doc. No. 94). Plaintiff then filed the amended complaint on May 26, 2023.

             Defendants, including Lindell, moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim

             pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7), and the court held oral argument on the motions to dismiss on

             November 15-16, 2023. For the following reasons, the court dismisses the causes of action against

             Lindell in their entirety.

              160830/2022 THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. vs. INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT        Page 4 of 10
              LLC ET AL
              Motion No. 013

[* 4]                                                      4   of 10
     [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 P~                                                    INDEX NO. 160830/2022
     NYSCEF DOC. NO. 208                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

                                                           DISCUSSION

                       On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7), the court must "accept the facts as

                alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference,

                and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Leon v

                Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see also Chapman, Spira & Carson, LLC v Helix BioPharma

                Corp., 115 AD3d 526, 527 [1st Dept 2014]).

                       The court notes that, despite attaching to his motion papers the affirmation of Deepa

                Devanathan (NYSCEF Doc. No. 144) and exhibits referenced therein (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 145-

                146), Lindell has not moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(l) on

                the basis of a "defense [] founded upon documentary evidence" (CPLR 3211 (a)(l ); Opening

                Memo., NYSCEF Doc. No. 143, p. 1). Rather, the motion is limited to failure to state a cause of

                action under CPLR 321 l(a)(7). Nevertheless, dismissal may be appropriate based on documentary
,,              evidence where the documentary evidence "flatly reject[s]" the plaintiffs cause of action (see

                Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 115 AD3d 128, 134-135 [ I st Dept

                2014]). When a defendant submits documentary evidence, the standard shifts from "whether the

                plaintiff stated a cause of action to whether it has one" (id. at 135 [internal citations and quotation

                marks omitted]; Kaplan v Conway & Conway, 173 AD3d 452, 453 [1st Dept 2019] [finding that

                the motion court "properly considered the emails submitted by defendants in dismissing the

                complaint"]). Therefore, the court will consider the documentary evidence that Lindell has

                submitted.

                             1. Section 11

                       Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 allows a purchaser of securities to sue where a

                 160830/2022 THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. vs. INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT         Page 5 of 10
                 LLC ET AL
                 Motion No. 013

                                                               5 of 10
[* 5]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 P~                                                      INDEX NO. 160830/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 208                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

             registration statement "contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a

             material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not

             misleading" (15 USCA § 77k[a]). To state a cause of action under section 11, a plaintiff must

             allege that they "(l) purchased a registered security . . . (2) the defendant participated in the

             offering in the manner specified by the statute; and (3) the registration statement contained an

             untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact" (Mahar v General Electric

             Company, 188 AD3d 534, 535 [l st Dept 2020] [internal citation and quotation marks omitted];

             Hoffman v AT & T Inc., 67 Misc3d 1212(A), *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2020]).

                        However, liability under section 11 is limited to discrete categories of defendants, and

             "courts have construed the list strictly" (In re Global Crossing, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 2005 WL 1907005,

             *8 [SDNY Aug 8, 2005]). Section 11 liability may apply to signatories of the registration

             statement, directors or partners of the issuer, whether named in the registration statement or not,

             underwriters, and "every accountant, engineer, or appraiser, or any person whose profession gives

             authority to a statement made by him, who has with his consent been named as having prepared

             or certified any part of the registration statement" (15 USC § 77k[a]; Winter v Stronghold Digital

             Mining, Inc., 2023 WL 5152177, *5 [SONY Aug 10, 2023] ["Section 11 applies to registration

             statements filed with the SEC and provides redress against a security's issuer, underwriter, and

             certain other statutorily enumerated parties."]; Banerjee v Zhangmen Education Inc., 2023 WL

             2711279, *5 [SONY Mar 30, 2023]). While liability is "virtually absolute" for issuers of securities,

             "experts such as accountants" are accorded a "due diligence defense" (In re Wachovia Equity

             Securities Litigation, 753 F Supp 2d 326, 378-379 [SDNY 2011] [internal citations and quotation

             marks omitted]; Winter, 2023 WL 5152177, at *5 ["Section 11 thus imposes strict liability on

             issuers of securities, and negligence liability on the issuers' officers, directors and experts."]).

              160830/2022 THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. vs. INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT          Page 6 of 10
              LLC ET AL
              Motion No. 013

                                                            6   of 10
[* 6]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 P~                                                    INDEX NO. 160830/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 208                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

                    The court grants Lindell' s motion to dismiss the section 11 claim because Lindell has

             established that he did not fall into any of the enumerated categories of defendants. First,

             notwithstanding the amended complaint's allegation that Lindell was one of the individuals liable

             for "having signed or authorized the signing of the December 2019 Securities Act Filing"

             (Amended Complaint, ,r 297), Plaintiff admits in its opposition papers that Lindell did not sign the

             December 2019 Registration Statement (Opposition, NYSCEF Doc. No. 162, p. 20). The only

             individuals who signed the December 2019 Registration Statement were Christopher Kashmerick,

             John Chrystal, Albert DiUlio, Harry Resis, Russell Simon, Potter, Velissaris, and Neil Gray

             (December 2019 Registration Statement, pp. 118-119; Ex. I to Devanathan Aff., NYSCEF Doc.

             No. 145). Further, Plaintiff makes no allegation that Lindell was a director or partner of the issuer,

             the Trust. Rather, the December 2019 Registration Statement makes it clear that Lindell was the

             Chief Risk Officer of Infinity Q Mgmt., who was "primarily responsible for the day-to-day

             management of the Fund" (id., pp. 14, 25). Nor does the amended complaint allege that Lindell

             was in any way an underwriter for purposes of section 11.

                    Rather, Plaintiffs theory of section 11 liability against Lindell relies on the assertion that

             Lindell is "referenced as Infinity Q's risk-management expert throughout the [December 2019

             Registration Statement]" (Opposition, p. 20). However, this characterization of Lindell as an

             "expert" appears nowhere in the December 2019 Registration Statement. Nor does the December

             2019 Registration Statement refer to Lindell as either an "accountant, engineer, or appraiser,"

             which are examples of individuals who can be held liable under section l l(a)(4). Even if Lindell

             could have been treated as a "person whose profession gives authority to a statement made by him"

             pursuant to section 11 (a)( 4), Lindell correctly argued that no liability would attach because the

             December 2019 Registration Statement does not reflect Lindell's consent to being named (Reply,

              160830/2022 THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. vs. INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT        Page 7 of 10
              LLC ET AL
              Motion No. 013

                                                           7   of 10
[* 7]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 P~                                                   INDEX NO. 160830/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 208                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

             NYSCEF Doc. No. 181. pp. 4-5; see In re Lehman Bros. Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation,

             650 F3d 167, 175 [2d Cir 2011] [noting that section 11 is limited to "statutorily enumerated

             parties," including "accountants or other experts consenting to be named as preparing or certifying

             part of the registration statement"] [emphasis added]). Contrary to the conclusory allegation that

             Lindell "consented to having been named as [a] person[] who prepared or certified parts of the

             December 2019 Securities Act Filing" (Amended Complaint, ,r 274), the December 2019

             Registration Statement contains no reference to such consent. Rather, the only reference in the

             December 2019 Registration Statement to a consent by any purported expert is the Index of

             Exhibits' reference to the "Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm," which

             allegedly relates to EisnerAmper (December 2019 Registration Statement, p. 120; Ex. 2 to

             Devanathan Aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 146; Amended Complaint, ,r 145). Therefore, because

             Lindell does not fall within one of the strictly construed statutorily enumerated categories of

             defendants, the court dismisses the section 11 claim against him.

                        2. Section 15

                    The court also dismisses the section 15 claim against Lindell. Section 15 provides that

             "[ e]very person who, by or through stock ownership, agency, or otherwise ... controls any person

             liable under sections [11] or [12] of[the Securities Act], shall also be liable jointly and severally

             with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person to whom such controlled

             person is liable" (15 USCA § 770; Matter of NIO Inc. Securities Litigation, 211 AD3d 464, 466

             [1st Dept 2022]; Erie County Employees' Retirement System v NN, Inc., 205 AD3d 644, 646 [1st

             Dept 2022]). To state a claim for a section 15 violation, a plaintiff must allege "( a) a primary

             violation by a controlled person, and (b) control by the defendant of the primary violator" (In re

             Global Crossing. Ltd. Securities Litig., 2005 WL 1907005, * 11 [SDNY Aug 8, 2005]; Erie County

              160830/2022 THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. vs. INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT       Page 8 of 10
              LLC ET AL
              Motion No. 013

                                                           8   of 10
[* 8]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 P~                                                      INDEX NO. 160830/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 208                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

        .   ;

                Employees' Retirement System, 205 AD3d at 646). In order to allege control, a plaintiff must allege

                the "power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of [the primary

                violators], whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise" (City of

                Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System v Evoqua Water Technologies Corp., 450 F Supp 3d

                379, 427 [SONY 2020]).

                       The amended complaint alleges that Lindell was a "control person[] of Infinity Q, the

                Mutual Fund, and/or [the Trust] by virtue of [his] management position[] with and/or ownership

                of Infinity Q" (Amended Complaint, ,r 295). However, Lindell cannot be held liable as a control

                person of either Infinity Q Mgmt. or the Mutual Fund because the amended complaint lacks any

                remaining underlying section 11 or 12(a)(2) claims against those parties. A section 15 claim is

                "dependent on the existence of an underlying Securities Act claim" (Feinberg v Marathon Patent

                Group Inc., 193 AD3d 568, 571 [1st Dept 2021] [finding lower court properly dismissed section

                15 claim after dismissing underlying section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims]; Matter ofNIO Inc. Securities

                Litigation, 211 AD3d 464, 466 [1st Dept 2022] [holding that lower court properly dismissed

                control person liability claims under section 15 because plaintiffs failed to allege a primary

                violation under sections 11 or 12(a)(2)]). The amended complaint never claimed an underlying

                section 11 or 12(a)(2) violation by the Mutual Fund, and the court dismissed any section 11 or

                12(a)(2) claim against Infinity Q Mgmt. in the decision and order on Infinity Q Mgmt.'s motion

                to dismiss (see February 26, 2024 Decision and Order, NYSCEF Doc. No. 205).

                       Nor does Plaintiff sufficiently allege control person liability over the Trust. Plaintiff's

                opposition apparently abandoned the claim of control person liability over the Trust, focusing

                solely on alleged control of Infinity Q Mgmt. (Opposition, p. 16). In any event, neither the

                amended complaint nor the December 2019 Registration Statement provide any basis for a claim

                 160830/2022 THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. vs. INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT       Page 9 of 10
                 LLC ET AL
                 Motion No. 013

[* 9]                                                        9   of 10
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 P~                                                      INDEX NO. 160830/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 208                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

             of control person liability as to the Trust. The amended complaint alleges that, along with

             Sonderman, Potter, and Velissaris, Lindell "created Infinity O" and took on a number of roles at

             Infinity 0, including Chief Risk Officer (Amended Complaint, ,r,r 4, 30, 214 [emphasis added]).

             The December 2019 Registration Statement confirms that any role Lindell had was with Infinity

             Q, describing that "Scott Lindell is the Chief Risk Officer of Infinity Q, and joined the firm in

             2014" (December 2019 Registration Statement, p. 25). The court dismisses the section 15 claim

             against Lindell because there are no non-conclusory allegations that indicate Lindell had any role

             in the Trust, much less control of the Trust.

                     Accordingly, it is

                     ORDERED that Lindell's motion to dismiss the amended complaint's causes of action

             against him under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act is granted in its entirety.

                      \1
                   03""2024
                      DATE                                                      MELISSA A. CRANE, J.S.C.

                                     §                                §
             CHECK ONE:                    ASE DISPOSED                  ON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         □DENIED        RANTED IN PART          DTHER
             APPLICATION:                  ETTLE ORDER                   UBMITORDER
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        NCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      IDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □REFERENCE

              160830/2022 THE GLENMEDE TRUST COMPANY, N.A. vs. INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT          Page 10 of 10
              LLC ET AL
              Motion No. 013

[* 10]                                                       10 of 10