Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

17-1724 - GWG MCA Capital, Inc. v. Nulook Capital, LLC

Download Files


Document in Context
17-1724 - GWG MCA Capital, Inc. v. Nulook Capital, LLC
August 8, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall cease and desist from taking further actions to enforce any lien against PSCs assets; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall not transfer, liquidate, convert, encumber, pledge, loan, sell, conceal, dissipate, waste, disburse, assign, convey, or otherwise dispose of any assets of PSC pledged as collateral by the receiver to the Plaintiff; and it is further ORDERED that the receiver shall, to the best of its ability, preserve any remaining assets of PSC during the pendency of this litigation; and it is further ORDERED that in lieu of a hearing, the parties will address these issues in writing, after which the Court will endeavor to issue a prompt ruling. In this regard, the Court is directing that all responses to the pending motions by Nazareno and Aurigema to dismiss the complaint and/or remove the receiver will be due on or before August 23, 2017; and it is further ORDERED that the receiver's initial report shall also remain due on August 23, 2017; and it is further ORDERED that Nazareno and Aurigema may reply in further support of their motions to dismiss and/or remove the receiver by August 30, 2017, and may include in such replies any substantive response to the receivers initial report; and it is further ORDERED that surreplies responding to any new arguments raised by the movants in their replies responding to the receiver's initial report will be due no later than September 6, 2017; and it is further ORDERED that the deadline for PSCs shareholders or any other allegedly interested party to seek to intervene in this action will be August 23, 2017, with responses due on August 30, 2017, and replies, if any, due on September 6, 2017; and it is further ORDERED that this expedited briefing schedule will not be altered except upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Finally, the Court reinstates its July 12, 2017 Short Form Order insofar as the Plaintiff's obligation to respond to the Defendant Anthony Mannino's counterclaim, as well as its deadline for seeking leave to amend the complaint, are extended until two weeks after the Bankruptcy Court resolves the pending application for relief from the automatic stay related to the co-Defendant Nulook Capital LLC. Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 8/8/2017. (Florio, Lisa)
February 26, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: terminating 84 Motion for Order to Show Cause; terminating 98 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and, finding none, fully concurs with Magistrate Judge Brown's R&R. See Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y.2007). Nonetheless, in the interests of justice, the Court has afforded the Plaintiff and the Receiver a de novo review, although without specific objections to guide the Court. In this regard, the Plaintiff and the Receiver's only discernible objections that are based on the previous record are that (1) Magistrate Judge Brown may not have considered the Receiver's declarations in his R&R; and (2) Magistrate Judge Browns Report does not distinguish between the relief sought in the two instant motions. In the Court's view, neither contention holds any merit. Any other objection is either immaterial to the findings in the R&R or otherwise irrelevant. After a thorough, de novo review of the R&R, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Brown's well-reasoned R&R. The R&R is adopted in its entirety and the objections are denied. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/26/2018. (Ortiz, Grisel) Modified on 5/8/2018 (Ortiz, Grisel).