ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOS. 15-15635/15-15636/16 … from the United States District Court for the...

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOS. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL LAUER, Defendant/Appellant,

and

JOHN BENDALL, JR., & RICHARD GEIST, and MARTIN GARVEY, Appellants,

v.

MARTY STEINBERG, COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER, Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

03-80612 CV-KAM

RECEIVER/APPELLEE MARTY STEINBERG’S OPPOSITION TO

APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL

Hunton & Williams LLP Attorneys for Marty Steinberg as Receiver/Appellee Sabadell Financial Center 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel: 305.810.2500 Fax: 305.810.2460 Juan C. Enjamio FL Bar No. 571910 [email protected]

Case: 15-15635 Date Filed: 12/07/2016 Page: 1 of 64

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Michael Lauer and John W. Bendall, Jr., et al. v. Marty Steinberg, Court-Appointed Receiver

Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-1 of 46

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Eleventh Circuit

Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-3, the undersigned counsel for Marty Steinberg, Court-

Appointed Receiver, hereby certifies the following is a complete list of the trial

judge, attorneys, persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, or

corporations that have an interest in the outcome of this appeal, including

subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, and parent corporations, including any

publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s stock, and other

identifiable legal entities related to a party:

169642 Canada Inc.

170089 Canada Inc.

171212 Canada Inc.

175020 Canada Inc.

3421317 Canada, Inc.

375 Park Ave. LP

Abele, Sasha A., Esq.

ABSA Bank Limited

Acedon Fondation de Famille

Advantage Select Ltd.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-2 of 46

Aetna, Inc. [AET]

Ajial Holdings Limited

A1 Mashal Investment Enterprises Limited

Alford, S.A.

Allied Interstate, Inc.

Almarzook, Mohamed

Alpha Fifth Group

Alpha Omega Group Inc.

Alps Investment Fund

Altar Fund Ltd. (The)

Alter, Jonathan B.

Alter, Jonathan B., Esq.

Alternative Leaders S.A.

Amatra Investments Limited

American Express Company [AXP]

American Interactive Media Inc.

American Stock Exchange (The)

Anderson, Mark

Ansbacher (Bahamas) Ltd.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-3 of 46

Appleby Corporate Services (Cayman) Ltd.

Arngre Inc.

Arnold, Greg T.

Argo Partners

Arnold, Greg T.

Arrowsmith Fund, Ltd. (The)

Ascendant Fund Management

Asche, Richard M., Esq.

ASPI Europe, Inc.

Astolfi, Paul

AT&T Inc. [T]

AT&T Mobility LLC

Aug Corp.

Aura Systems, Inc. [AUSI]

Avalon Global Asset Management

Avison Company SA

AXA Alternative Strategies Fund Ltd.

Baesel, Jerome

Bailliere, Thomas



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-4 of 46

Balleine, Brian

Banca Unione Di Credito

Banco Nominees (Guernsey) Limited

Banco Nominees (Iom) Limited

Bane, David, E., Esq.

Bank Hapoalim ( Switzerland) Ltd.

Bank Hofmann AG Zurich

Bank Jacob Safra (Schweiz) Ag A/ C PWI Foundation

Bank Julius Baer & Co. Limited

Bank Leu AG Zurich

Bank of America Co. [BAC]

Bank of America Securities, LLC

Bank of Bermuda Limited (The) n/k/a HSBC Bank Bermuda Limited [HSBC:BH]

Bank of Bermuda (Luxembourg) SA RE

Bank of Butterfield Exec & TR

Bank of New York Mellon [BK]

Bank Sal Oppenheim Jr & Cie (Schweiz) AG

Banque De Luxembourg S.A.

Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild Europe (Luxembourg)



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-5 of 46

Banque Privee Edmond De Rothschild SA

Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Perlman &Nagelberg

Barbarosh, Milton H.

Barbatano, Salvatore A.

Barrack, David L.

Barrett, William J., Esq.

Barrie Jr., John G.

Barton, Tina

Barzee Flores PA

Base Force Ltd.

Bast Amron, LLP

Bast, Jeffrey P., Esq.

Batnet Inc.

Baum, Jack

Baum, Janet

Bear Stearns [BSC]

Beary, Patricia

Beaumont, Anne E., Esq.

Bendall, John W., Jr.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-6 of 46

Bennahaum Asset Management

Bennahaum Management Group

Benson, William

Berger Singerman, P.A.

Berman, James

Berman, Scott M.

Berry, Roger D.

Bessemer Trust Company

Beverly Negreann Ira Account

Biltrust Limited

Biometrics Security Technology Inc.

Binella Holdings SA

Blaylock, Esq., David

Blonsky, Daniel F., Esq.

Bloomberg L.P.

Blue, Neil A.

Bnp (Switzerland) Sa

BNP Private Bank & Trust Bahamas Ltd.

BNY Clearing



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-7 of 46

BNY Clearing LLC

Bombardier Trust (UK)

Boucher, Michel

Boxwood Securities Limited

Boyce, Caroline

Boyle, Martin E., Esq.

BPSS Cic Alternatif

Braithwaite, Kathyrn

Brandy Gonzalez-Abreu PA

Brisman, Judith

Broad & Cassel

Brock, Timothy T.

Brown, Delphine W. Knight

Brown & Heller, P.A.

Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels

Brown, Jack

Bruhl, John L.

Bruno & Degenhardt

Bruno, Jane D., Esq.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-8 of 46

Bryan Cave LLP

Buckingham, Doolittle, & Burroughs, LLP

Buffalo Capital VI Ltd.

Bungey, Kate

Bums, Martin

Burlington, Robert K., Esq.

Burton, Bill

Buschel Gibbons, PA

Buschel, Robert

Buschi, Alex

Business and Trade Networks of Bennahaum Asset Management

Bustillo, Eric

Cable Road Investments Ltd.

Caceis Bank Luxemburg

Caisb

Callagy, Robert M.

Canada Life Assurance Company (The)

Cantor Fitzgerald & Company

Capital Research Group Ltd.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-9 of 46

Capital Research Ltd.

Caprio, Courtney Anne, Esq.

Carberry, John F., Esq.

Carens, Heidi

Carey, W. Ward

Carlson, Dwight D.

Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, LLP

Caruso, Michael

CBAS Global Hedge

CBG Compagnie Bancaire Geneve

Cedar Fund

Cendrowski, Harry

Central NY Cardiac Surgical Group MPP

Central Parking System

Cenveo, Inc.

Cerro Torre Capital Corporation

Cerro Torre Corporation

Chafatinos, Jeanine

Chagnon, Claude



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-10 of 46

Charles Schwab [SCHW]

Chase, David R., Esq.

Chase, Tim

Chelovich, Peter

Chastell Foundation (The)

Chen, Vanessa

Chyten, Kenneth E., Esq.

Cimo, David C., Esq.

Circle Nominees Limited

Cirulnick, Riley, W., Esq.

CITCO

Citco Corporate Services Inc.

CITCO Fund Services Inc.

Citco Fund Services (Caracao)

Citco Fund Services (USA) Inc.

Citco Global Custody (NA) NV

City of New York (The)

City of New York (The), Department of Finance

Clearwater Commercial Enterprises



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-11 of 46

Cloyd, Leslie G., Esq.

CNCA- Set Brunoy Sub A/C LCF

Coast Asset Management LP

Coast Asset Management LLC

Cobble Hill Associates, Inc.

Coffey Burlington

Cohen, Jenny F., Esq.

Cohen, Joshua W.

Cohen, Joshua W., Esq.

Colasanti and Scott Attorney Trust Account

Colson Hicks Edison

Combe Securities

Commerzbank Alternative Strategies

Commonfund Global Hedged Partners LLC

Computrac Inc.

Condor Alternative Fund, Ltd.

Connecticut Department of Labor

Connecticut Light and Power Company (The)

Conroy, Kieran



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-12 of 46

Conyers, Dill & Pearman

Cooley Godward Kronish LLP

Corbett Family Charitable Foundat. Inc. (The)

Corbett, Richard A.

Cord, C.E.

Corder, Travis

Courter, Jeffrey W.

Courtney, Brian C.

Couture, Raymond J. CA

Cowen, Bruce

Cowen, Kathyrn

Credit Agricole Indosuez Luxembourg A/C Unicom

Credit Store Inc.

Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation

Credit Suisse Nominees (Guernsey) Limited A/C Gib

Credit Suisse Zurich

Crown Financial

Cypro International B.V.

David Nathan Meyerson Private Foundation (The)



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-13 of 46

David R. Chase PA

Davies, Michael G.

Decora Industries Inc.

Decton Limited

Delphi Global Ltd.

Demers, Susan V., Esq.

Demole, Claude

Deutch, Paul H.

Deutsche Bank Custody N.V.

Deutsche Bank Nominees (Jersey) Limited A / C Signet

Devon Trust (The)

DeYoung, Jim

Dick, David

Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP

Digital Launch Mobile

Dillworth, Drew M., Esq.

Diversified Capital Management Ltd.

DLA Piper LLP

Dolik, Michael N.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-14 of 46

Dombroff, Robert M.

Dominion Income Management Corp.

Dresner, Milton H.

Dunand, Alain

East Hill Financial Group Inc.

E-Biz Jets

Ecare Solutions Inc. [ECSL]

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC

Eckhardt, Kevin. M., Esq.

Eckstein, Andrew B., Esq.

Economic Group Pension Services, Inc.

Edward, S. Nelson Ira

EES Funds

EES Investments Fund, LP

EFG Offshore Limited A/C 8501

Efg Private Bank SA

EFG Reads Trustees LTD A/C 8501

EFT Reads Trustees LTD A/C 8502

Eichelberger, Martin D.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-15 of 46

Elayne Herrick 2002 Irrevocable Trust

Elias, Jamie E.

Emmanuel Koltes

E-New Media Company Ltd.

Enjamio, Juan C., Esq.

Evans, Andrew L.

Environmental Corporation of America

Envision Development Corp.

Epstein, Neil G., Esq.

Equitable Payment Center

Equitel Communications Corporation

Equitel Inc.

Equitel Wireless, Inc.

Erb Family Investment, LP

Erickson, Brian W.

ESAT Inc.

Ethos Investments Limited

Euroclear Bank SA/NV

Europeenne D' Intermediation



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-16 of 46

Evands, Andrew L.

Fbo Ais Holding Limited Series Trust

Federal Express Corporation [FDX]

Felicetta, Carol A.

FiberNet Telecom Group LLC

Fidelity First Financial Corp. [FFIRD]

Fidelity First Mortgage LLC

Fidelity First Mortgage Group LLC

Fiducie Desjardins

Fidulex Management Inc.

Field Nominees Limited A/C

Field, Stephen R.

First Corporate Sedans Inc.

First Trust Corp. TTEE Fbo

First Trust Corp. TTEE

First Trust Corporation

Fiskaaen, Nina

Fleet Bank

Fleet Small Business Services



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-17 of 46

Flores, Hector

Floridaatt, Jerry U.

Fondation J. Armand Bombardier

Fondation Lilla

Fondation Lucie Et Andre Chagnon

Fontan, Suzanne

Fortis Global Custody Mgmt & Trtee Services (Ireland)

Fortstreet Nominees Limited

Fowler White Burnett

Fracasso, Robert G., Jr., Esq.

Frank, Philip

Fretter, Howard 0.

Fretter, Oliver L.

Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP

Friedman, Theodore H.

FTI Consulting, Inc. [FCN]

Fund Nominees Ltd.

Furman Selz Inc.

FutureNet, Inc. [FUNN]



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-18 of 46

Garvey, Martin

Gaunt, Kevin, Esq.

Geiger, William, III

Geist, Richard

Genetic Vectors Inc. [GVEC]

Genovese Joblove & Battista

Gershman, David

Gersten Savage L L P

G.H. Associates LLC

Gibb, Hugh

Global e Tutor, Inc.

Goldberg, Thomas D.

Goldenthal, Jack

Goldstein, Golub, Kessler LLP

Gonzalez-Abreu, Brandy, Esq.

Gordon, Andrew

Gottlieb, Lawrence C., Esq.

Goulam Investments

Graber, Garry M.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-19 of 46

Greenberg Traurig

Greenfield Partners

Gregory, Mark S.

Greilsheimer, Jeffrey, Esq.

Grevy, Jacqueline

Greyhawke Capital

Greyhawk Net Lease Investors II

Grossman, Scott M., Esq.

GtAlpha

Gunter, Crista

Gunther, Kevin E.

Guardian (The)

Gut, Stephan

Guzik and Asso Escrow Account

Halinvest

Halinvest, Sarl

Hardwick, Sarah

Harris Nesbitt Gerard

Hartman, Roy M., Esq.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-20 of 46

Hart, Meghan M., Esq.

Hauser, Eric

Heals Ltd.

Hecht, Leonard

Hecht, Thomas Esq.

Heer, Irene

Heffeman, John P.

Henderson, Judith

Hennig, Jeffrey

Henzy, Eric A.

Hermitage Capital Partners

Herrick, Howard

Hervey, Mary A., Esq.

Hill, Roger C.

Hinman, Brian L.

Hirsch, Hal M.

Hodgson Russ LLP

Hodkin, Adam J., Esq.

Hoffman, Jeff



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-21 of 46

Hole In The Wall Gang

Holocaust Requiem Foundation

Hopkins, James M., Magistrate Judge

Houlihan, D’Arsey, III

Hsbc Guyerzeller Bank Ag

HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA

HSBC Republic

Huard, Joseph

Hughes Hubbard & Reed

Humphries, James

Hunnicutt & Co., Inc.

Hunnicutt & Co. Inc. Defined Benefit Plan

Hunnicutt, William H.

Hunton & Williams, LLP

Hurwitz & Sagarin, LLC

IAN Settlement

Iconnect.com

I.C. Systems, Inc.

Inlaks Foundation



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-22 of 46

Insignia/Esq

Instinet Corporation

International Isotopes Inc. [INIS]

IRA FBP William Hunnicutt Vftc As Custodian

Irish, Nina

Isicoff Ragatz & Koenigsberg

Israel Henry Beren Charitable Trust (The)

Isaacson, Laurence

Isolver.Com Inc.

J. Henry Schroder Bank Ag

Jaco, Paula

Jacob Dahle, Hans

Jewish Education Center

Jiranek, Andrew L. Esq.

Jiranek Company, P.A.

Johnson, Linnea, Magistrate Judge

Jordan, Anthony J.

Jordan, Hon. Adalberto

Joseph, Tromba & Janetta



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-23 of 46

Joyce Sinclair Spousal Trust

JP Morgan

JP Morgan Chase Bank [JPM]

JRT Realty Group Inc.

Julin, Thomas

Kalisman, Gayle

Kalisman, Michael, Dr.

Kamensky, Andrew, Esq.

Kapila, Soneet R.

Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, LLP

Katsikas, Daniel J.

Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP

Katz, Barbara H.

Kaya, Flamboyan

Kayser, Robert

Kelly, James

Kelly, Jim

Kenmar Advisory Corp.

Kenmar Management Limited



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-24 of 46

Kikousu Trust

Klein, Gary S.

Klitzberg, Richard

KMEFIC Prime Fund

Knight Securities, LP

Knight, Christopher W.

Knowles, Faye

Koenig, Lori

Kosowsky, J. Allen

KPF Investors Partnership

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Kredietbank Luxembourgeoise

Krinzman, Huss & Lubetsky LLP

Krisch Actuarial Consultants

Krish Actuarial Consultants

Kuehne, Benedict P., Esq.

Kuwait & Middle East Financial Investment Company

Labiscouti Trust

LaBush, Gerald



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-25 of 46

La Compagnie Financiere Edmond de Rothschild Banque

Ladenburg Thalman & Co.

Ladenburg Thalman Financial Services (LTS)

Lalan, Christopher P., Esq.

Lancer Management Group, LLC

Lancer Management Group, II LLC

Lancer Offshore, Inc.

Lancer Partners, L.P.

Lancer Partners, LP Liquidating Trust

Lander, Harry

Larson, Robert C.

Lasertec International Inc.

Lasher, Brian

Lauer, Michael

Law Offices of Benedict P. Kuehne, P.A.

Law Offices of Marc David Seitles, P.A.

Leavers, Craig B., Esq.

Lehman Brothers, Inc.

Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. [LEHMQ]



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-26 of 46

Lehmkuhl, Joakim

Leonard, Robert

Lerner, Alia

Lerner, Allan M., Esq.

Lescoat, Cecile

Letier, Scott

Levie, George

Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider & Grossman LLP

Levy, Ralph B., Esq.

L and G Investment Corp. Ltd.

L.H. Logarithm Holdings SA

Lilling & Company LLP

Lincoln Financial Group

Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York

Lincoln National Corp. [LNC]

L. Isaacson, Inc.

Litman Asche & Gioiella LLP

Livforsikringsselskapet Nordea Liv Norge AS

Lombardi, Richard



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-27 of 46

Lombard Odier Darier Rentsch & Cie Geneva

Lovett, Robert B., Esq.

Low, Josiah O., III

Low, Timothy I.

Lowery, Kerry-Jean

Lowery, Marjorie

LSPV Inc.

LSPV LLC

Luce, III, Thomas W.

Lynn Cohen Foundation

Machinist, Bob

Mackay, John D. L., Esq.

Mackey, Steven E., Esq.

Madison Textiles Limited

Maestro Trading Inc.

Maffeo, J. Bruce, Esq.

Magnum Global Investments

Mahalingam, Sidhambaram

Maltz, Allen



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-28 of 46

Maltz, Scott

Mango Capital, Inc.

Mangosoft Inc.

Mann, Martin, Esq.

Marcus, Kenneth

Marra, Kenneth A., Judge, U.S. District Court

Martin, Christopher, E., Esq.

Martineau, Fasken

Masureh, Stiftung Vaduz

Matrix Bond Fund Limited

Mattimore, John

Maum, Robert

Maza, Alan S., Esq.

McAliley, Hon. Chris M.

McHale, Gerard A., Jr.

Mellon Bank NA

Mendelsohn, Stephen A., Esq.

Mercury Trade International Ltd

Meridian Group



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-29 of 46

Merrill Lynch

Meyerson 1999 Charitable Remainder Trust (The)

Meyerson, Morton H.

Millenium Health Card

Millionare.Com

Mirabaud & Cie.

Mirabaud Canada Inc.

Mirkin, Bradley L., Esq.

Miro, Jeff

Miro, Marsha

M M Warburg Bank (Schweiz) AG

Monaco, Nicholas

Moodhe, Joseph P.

Moon, John G., Esq.

Morgan Stanley Alternative Investment Partners LP

Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund of Hedge Funds, LP

Morgan Stanley Investments LP

Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.

Morin, Francois



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-30 of 46

Morley Investments, Ltd.

Morton, Sherman

Moscowitz, Norman A., Esq.

Moscowitz & Moscowitz, P.A.

Mu, Sara

Mullen, Terence Michael, Esq.

Multivalor Invest Inc.

Murdoch & Company

Murray, Marguerite

Myers, Peter

Nantucket Capital MGMT, LLC

Natbony, William

Natexis Banques Populaires SA

National Bank of Canada

National Health Plan Plus Inc.

Naville, Christian

Neal R. Sonnett, PA

Needham Capital MGMT

Negreaan, Saul



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-31 of 46

Neiwirth, Ronald G., Esq.

Nelson, Diane J.

Nelson, Edward S.

Nelson, Michael E.

Neuberger Quinn Gielen Rubin & Gibber

Neumann, Adele

Neurocorp Ltd.

Nevro Corp.

New York City Department of Finance

New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Newma, Adele

Newman, David

Niagara Mist Marketing Ltd.

Nobilis Inc.

Nobilis, SA

Nordea Liv Norge AS, Controller

Norges Investor Long Short AS

Norges Investor Value AS

Northeast Utilities



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-32 of 46

North Shore Agency, Inc.

Nurik, Marc S., Esq.

NYS Department of Labor

Oakland Valley, Inc.

O'Callaghan, Anthony

O'Callaghan, Christopher

O’Callaghan, Mary

O'Callaghan, Patricia

O'Callaghan, Scott P.

O'Callaghan, Tony

O’Connor, Brian E., Esq.

Ogden Investments Ltd.

Okabena Marketable Alternatives Fund, LLC

Olson, Hon. John

OmniFund, Ltd.

O’Neill, Jeffrey

OnStar

Open Small Business Network

Opportunistic Strategy Fund (The)



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-33 of 46

Opportunistic Strategy Fund For Benefit Plan Investors (The)

Options Price Reporting Authority

Orbiter Fund, Ltd.

Oria, Irene, Esq.

Oxford Health

Ozada, Enrich

Padell Nadell Fine Weinberg & Company

Padula Hodkin, PLLC

Papamarkou Wellner Asset Management

Pappas, Harry G., Jr.

Patrick, Jack B.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind

Pax Wholesome Foods

Paychex – EIB

Paychex – HRS

Paychex Inc. [PAYX]

Paychex TPS

Pearce, Robert Wayne, Esq.

Pension Committee of the Regime de Reraite de la Corporation de Ecole (The)



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-34 of 46

Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan (The)

Persichilli, Susan P., Esq.

Petrovi, Doreen

Pfeifer, Andrew, CPA

Philip Louis Trading, Inc.

Pictet & Cie Banquiers

Pidgeon, George

Pigelet, Anne Chantal

Pierce, Ingrid

Pollack, David C., Esq.

Poller, Neale J., Esq.

Polytechnique

Press, Carol L., Esq.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Profin Associates

Profin International Advisors, Ltd.

Proskauer Rose LLP

Quality Dino Entertainment

Quilligan, Declan



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-35 of 46

R&H Fund Services

Rabbach, David J., Esq.

Raker, James

Rambaud, Jean-Christophe

Random Investments Inc.

Rand, William Coudert

Rapp, Michael

Rasile, Craig, Esq.

Raskin, Jane S., Esq.

Raskin & Raskin

Raymond, Mark F., Esq.

RBC Inc.

RCA in Trust

Redfield, Alice D.

Redfield, Peter S.

Redgape, Russell

Redmond, Patricia A., Esq.

Regent Capital Trust Corporation Limited

Regent Trust Co., Ltd (The), R41 Account



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-36 of 46

Regime De Rentes Du Mouvement Desjardins

Re Liberty Ermitage N. A. Absolute Fund

Reuters America Inc.

Reynolds, Robert F., Esq.

RFR Realty LLC

Rice Pugatch Robinson & Schiller, P.A.

Richman Greer, P.A.

Riggs, Richard

Risk Management Alternatives, Inc.

Ritlow Property Development Corp.

Robert M. Beren Hedge Fund LLC

Robinson & Co

Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman

Rock Nominees Limited

Rogers, Michael

Roher, Mark Stuart, Esq.

Romance, Mark A., Esq.

Romano Eriksen Cronin Mullins

Romano, John F.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-37 of 46

Romulus Invest N.V.

Ronco, Christopher

Rosenthal, Michael

Rothschild et Cie Banque

Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler

Rotman, Keith

Round Enterprises Ltd.

Royal Bank of Canada (Suisse) [RY]

Royal Bank of Canada Trust Company (International) Limited

Rubens, Robin J., Esq.

Rubinson, Mitchell

RX Technology Holdings Inc.

Rye, Jonathan K.

Saavedra, Pelosi, Goodwin & Hermann, APA

Sacher, Zelman, Hartman, Paul, Beiley & Sacher, P.A.

Sale & Groothius LLP

Sale, Jon A., Esq.

Sale, Robert, Esq.

Sale, Rick



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-38 of 46

Sale & Weintraub, P.A.

Santaguida, Marylou

Salzberg, Mark A., Esq.

SARL

Sasha Katz, PL

Saulnier, Jean-Maurice

SBC SNET

Schaan, Emil Frick

Schillace, Salvatore

Schmidt, John E.

Schimkat, Harold E.

Schoeppl & Burke, P.A.

Schoeppl, Carl Francis, Jr., Esq.

Scott, Stephen T.

Seabolt, Scott T.

Seagram Bldg.

Securities and Exchange Commission

Seitles, Marc D., Esq.

Sentient Jet , Inc.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-39 of 46

Service Max Inc.

Setz, Bruno B.

Seven Seas Portfolio A Ltd.

Shaffer, Fred

Shamrock Partners, Ltd.

Shorenstein, Douglas W.

Shutts & Bowen

Siegel, Howard L., Esq.

Siegel, Jefrrey, S., Esq.

Sills, Cummis, & Gross, P.C.

Sil Nominees Limited

Silver, Jack

Simisa International/Iscandar Inc.

Sindler, Trisha D., Esq.

Singer, Paul

Skalka, Douglas, Esq.

Skees, Suzanne R.

Skynet Holdings Inc.

Slatkin & Reynolds PA



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-40 of 46

Smith, Kevin

Snyder, Jay

Sojecci Ltee

Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhom, Frischer, and & Sharp

Sonnett, Neal Russell, Esq.

Sorkin, Ira Lee, Esq.

Soundview Financial Group, Inc.

Southwest Credit Systems, L.P.

Space, Loral

Spears, Bryan

SPGP Private French Clients

SPH Investments

Spitzer & Feldman P.C.

S S Trust

Stafford Fund, Ltd. (The)

Stahl, Douglas, Esq.

Standard Bank Nominees (Iom) A/C SDCLT

Standard Parking Corp. [STAN]

Stanford Resources (US) Ltd.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-41 of 46

Starvest Funds, Ltd.

State of Connecticut Department of Revenue Services

State Street Trustees (Guernsey) Limited

Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson

Steinberg, Marty, Esq.

Stein & Rotman

Stenton Leigh Capital Corp.

Stenton Leigh Group Inc.

Sterling Technology Partners

Stewart, Collins

St Germain, Jo-Anne

Stinas, Nicolas E.

Stocker, Lawrence L.

Stone Path Group Inc.

Stott Nominees Limited A/C

Stroock Stroock & Lavan LLP

Swerdloff, Nicolas, Esq.

Tabas, Freedman, Soloff, Miller & Brown, P.A.

Tatum, Tim



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-42 of 46

Team Haas USA Ltd.

Teledata World Services Inc. [TWOS]

Teledate World Services Inc.

Ternes, Stephen J.

Thomas Kimble Assoc Trust AC

Thompsop, Elizabeth

Thornhill Group, Inc.

Torre Corporation

Total Film Group Inc.

Total Media Corp.

Trident Technology Partners

Trinity 3 Corporation ASPI Europe Inc.

Tropin, Harley S., Esq.

Trotman, Stanley, Jr.

Trust Estate of Irene Nelson

Tsakni, Jimmy

Tuchman, Kenneth D.

Tucker, Fiduciaire

Ubs (Cayman Islands) Ltd Ref Oxalis



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-43 of 46

UBS Asset Recovery Group

UBS Warburg

Underground Solutions Inc. [UGSI]

UnitedHealth Group

United States

United States Treasury

Universal Builders Supply, Inc., R.A.

Upshaw, Anthony, Esq.

U.S. Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Plastic Lumber Corp.

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission

U.S. Trustee

Van Kasper & Company

Vaughan, MD. James E.

VDC Communications Inc.

Velasquez, Mark

Venere Investments Ltd.

Verizon Wireless

Veronique Inc.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-44 of 46

Vesta Forsikring AS

VestaLiv SA

Viator Fund, Ltd.

Victoria Montgomery

Vittorio Mosca

Von Graffenried, Simone

Wachovia Bank

Wagner & Brown, Ltd.

Wagner, Cyril

Walkers

Walkers, Simon Pascoe

Wallace, Paul

Walsingham Fund Limited

Ward, Ellen

Wasserman Stotland Bratt Grossbaum

Weinberg &Company PA

Weinberg, Elliot

Weinberger, Imre

Wenik, Jack



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-45 of 46

Westwind Foundation Holdings Ltd.

Weyerhaeuser Master Retirement Trust

Willard, Dean M.

Williams, Gregory H.

Williams, Hon. Kathleen

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Wilson Elser Moscowitz

Wilson, Jacqueline

Wireless Communications

WJB Chiltern Nominees Ltd.

Wolff, Dylan

Wolf, John

Woodward, Rebecca

Workman, Esq., Donald

Wright, Robert T., Jr., Esq.

Wrobleski, Nicole P., Esq.

Wyatt, Richard

Wyman, Andrew D., Esq.

Xerox Capital Services



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

C-46 of 46

Xtracard Corp.

Xtraacard Services, Inc.

Zale, Donald

Zaron, Andrew D., Esq.

Ziegler, Richard G.

Zinn, Kerry Anne, Esq.

Zloch, Hon. William J.

Zoref CPA PC, Harold

Zysk, Jamie L.


Securities and Exchange Commission v. Michael Lauer and John W. Bendall, Jr., et al. v. Marty Steinberg, Court-Appointed Receiver,

Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

i

Table of Contents

Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement ................. C-1

Table of Authorities .................................................................................................. ii

Opposition .................................................................................................................. 1

I. The Reinstatement Motion Should Be Denied Because The Appellants Failed To File The Required Curative Brief And Appendix ............................................................................................... 1

II. The Reinstatement Motion Should Be Denied Because The Appellants Failed To Establish Extraordinary Circumstances Justifying Their Defaults ....................................................................... 2

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 13

Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 14



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

ii

Table of Authorities

Page(s)

Cases

Advanced Estimating System, Inc. v. Riney, 130 F.3d 996 (11th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................... 3, 4, 7

Barber v. American Security Bank, 841 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 8

Guam Sasaki Corp. v. Diana’s Inc., 881 F.2d 713 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................ 8

Helton v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections, 259 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 2, 3

Kushner v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., 620 F.2d 404 (3d Cir. 1980) ................................................................................. 8

Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) ............................................ 7

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)....................................... 11

RLI Insurance Co. v. JDJ Marine, Inc., 716 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 8

Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 3

Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 3

Young v. City of Palm Bay, Florida, 358 F.3d 859 (11th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 9, 11

Other Authorities

Local Rule 27-3 .......................................................................................................... 5



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

iii

Local Rule 42-2(d) ......................................................................................... 4, 5, 6, 9

Local Rule 42-2(e) ............................................................................................passim



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

1

OPPOSITION

Appellee Marty Steinberg, Esq., Court-appointed receiver (the “Receiver”)

for Lancer Management Group, LLC, Lancer Management Group II, LLC, Lancer

Offshore, Inc., Omnifund, Ltd., LSPV, Inc., LSPV, LLC, Alpha Omega Group,

Inc., CLR Associates, LLC, and G.H. Associates, LLC, through undersigned

counsel, respectfully submits this opposition to the Motion to Reinstate Appeal

(the “Reinstatement Motion”) filed by the Appellants on December 5, 2016. The

Receiver submits that the Reinstatement Motion fails to satisfy the requirements or

to respect the spirit of Local Rule 42-2(e), and should therefore be denied.

I. The Reinstatement Motion Should Be Denied Because The Appellants Failed To File The Required Curative Brief And Appendix

As a threshold matter, Local Rule 42-2(e) requires that an appellant seeking

reinstatement of an appeal submit with their motion “the required brief and

appendix.” The Appellants have filed a brief and appendix; however, the brief

egregiously disregards the Court’s directives in the July 26, 2016 dismissal and

consolidation order. That order directs the Appellants to file a consolidated brief

addressing only the district court’s November 24, 2015 and March 31, 2016 orders.

However, the brief filed by the Appellants addresses a number of other, earlier

orders, including orders from 2005 relating to Lauer’s personal funds (Brief at 44-

45); orders approving the Receiver’s actions “[f]rom mid-2003 to 2008, before



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

2

there was a judgment” against Lauer (Brief at 47); and, most notably, the order

appointing the Receiver in July 2003 and resulting removal of directors (Brief at

56-62, 67-71). The Appellants devote six pages of the brief to rearguing their two

previously-denied motions to reconsider the dismissal order. See Brief at 50-56.

More than twenty pages of the brief are dedicated to the Appellants’ argument that

the dismissal order and the receivership order were both improper, despite the fact

that the Court has repeatedly upheld the dismissal order and that Lauer himself

consented to the appointment of the Receiver in 2003. This is not the brief the

Court directed the Appellants to file by November 1, 2016 after denial of the first

motion for reconsideration. A brief blatantly disregarding this Court’s orders

should not suffice for Local Rule 42-2(e) purposes.

II. The Reinstatement Motion Should Be Denied Because The Appellants Failed To Establish Extraordinary Circumstances Justifying Their Defaults

Even if the Appellants have filed the required curative brief and appendix,

Local Rule 42-2(e) also requires that the Appellants establish “extraordinary

circumstances” justifying their failure to comply with this court’s briefing schedule

and local rules. Although this Court has not published decisions interpreting this

standard in the Rule 42-2(e) context, it has issued many decisions on an

identically-phrased and analogous standard applicable to equitable tolling of

deadlines for the filing of habeas corpus petitions. See e.g. Helton v. Secretary for



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

3

the Department of Corrections, 259 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) (“Equitable tolling

can be applied to prevent the application of the AEDPA’s statutory deadline when

‘extraordinary circumstances’ have worked to prevent an otherwise diligent

petitioner from timely filing his petition”). In that context, the Court has

repeatedly found that a petitioner’s attorney’s mistake or negligence, including

miscalculation of the applicable limitations period, does not provide sufficient

“extraordinary circumstances” for equitable tolling in favor of the petitioner. See

id. at 1313; Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000); Sandvik v. United

States, 177 F.3d 1269, 1272 (11th Cir. 1999). “Any miscalculation or

misinterpretation by [petitioner’s] attorney in interpreting the plain language of the

statute does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance sufficient to warrant

equitable tolling.” Steed, 219 F.3d at 1300.

This approach is consistent with this Court’s decisions interpreting the more

lenient “excusable neglect” standard for failing to comply with statutory filing

deadlines. In that context, this Court has held that, as a matter of law, “an

attorney’s misunderstanding of the plain language of a rule cannot constitute

excusable neglect such that a party is relieved of the consequences of failing to

comply with a statutory deadline.” See Advanced Estimating System, Inc. v. Riney,

130 F.3d 996, 998 (11th Cir. 1997). As this Court stated in Riney:



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

4

[A] lawyer’s misunderstanding of clear law cannot constitute excusable neglect. If it could, almost every appellant’s lawyer would plead his own inability to understand the law when he fails to comply with a deadline. We do not believe that the Court intended a practice that would require courts to be that lenient about disobedience to plain law.

Id. This Court in Riney distinguished between mistakes of fact, such as confusion

regarding notice, and mistakes of law, such as an attorney’s failure to review or

understand deadlines in statutes or rules. See id. at 999. The latter cannot, as a

matter of law, qualify as excusable neglect. See id. “[T]he reason for [appellant’s]

failure to file timely a notice of appeal was an apparent failure to review or to

appreciate the relevant rules … The ancient legal maxim continues to apply:

ignorance of fact may excuse; ignorance of law does not excuse.” Id.

The Reinstatement Motion is based entirely on a mistake of law by the

Appellants and their counsel – failure to comprehend the unambiguous

implications of Local Rule 42-2(d) – and thus cannot satisfy the excusable neglect

standard, let alone the more stringent extraordinary circumstances standard. The

relevant facts are undisputed: on July 26, 2016, this Court entered the sua sponte

order dismissing a portion of Appellants’ appeals in Case Nos. 15-15635 and 15-

15636 on jurisdictional grounds. In this order, the Court also directed the

Appellants to address only certain November 2015 and March 2016 orders in their



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

5

consolidated initial brief. Instead of complying with this order, the Appellants

filed their first motion for reconsideration. With the consent of the Receiver, the

Court stayed briefing in these appeals pending a decision on the first

reconsideration motion. On September 22, 2016, the Court denied the first

reconsideration motion, and the Clerk issued a notice stating that “the Appellants’

initial brief is due forty (40) days from this date, on or before November 01, 2016,

with the appendix due no later than seven days from the filing of the brief” (bold,

underlining, and italics original). Instead of filing a brief in compliance with the

schedule, the Appellants filed a groundless second motion for reconsideration and

requested another stay of briefing while this improper motion was considered. The

Receiver adamantly opposed this second reconsideration motion as improper under

Local Rule 27-3, and specifically objected to any stay or extension of the

November 1, 2016 briefing deadline. The Court did not adjust the existing briefing

schedule, and the Appellants failed to file their brief or appendix before the

deadline passed. They thus ran the risk that their second request to stay briefing in

the second reconsideration motion would be denied after the deadline and the

Clerk would be required to dismiss the appeals, as required by the clear and

unambiguous terms of Local Rule 42-2(d).



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

6

This is precisely what transpired. On November 22, 2016, the Court entered

an order denying the second reconsideration motion and the Appellants’ related

request for stay of briefing. Because the Appellants had not filed their brief or

appendix by the original deadline, the Clerk properly dismissed these appeals for

failure to prosecute in accordance with Local Rule 42-2(d).

The Appellants have failed to provide any explanation for their failure to

timely file their brief and appendix notwithstanding the clear language of Local

Rule 42-2(e). The only indication of their thinking is in footnote 2 to their

withdrawn November 30, 2016 motion to revoke the mandate, which indicates that

the Appellants “delayed filing their brief because they were seeking

reconsideration and clarification of an order of this Court that severely limited their

appeal.” Dismissal despite this strategy was not an “extraordinary circumstance”

or even reasonably unforeseeable – it is the exact situation contemplated by Local

Rule 42-2(d), and the exact risk accepted by the Appellants when they relied on the

improper second reconsideration motion without timely filing a brief and appendix.

Failure to review or understand the clear language of Local Rule 42-2(d) is the

only plausible explanation for the Appellants’ failure to timely file their briefs and

appendix under these facts. This garden-variety ignorance of the law cannot



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

7

qualify as excusable neglect, much less justify reinstatement under the

extraordinary circumstances standard of Rule 42-2(e). See Riney, 130 F.3d at 998.

Recognizing the absence of extraordinary circumstances justifying their

disregard for the Court’s briefing deadlines and rules, the Appellants instead base

the Reinstatement Motion on a plea for leniency, citing the supposed merits of

their brief, the purported constitutional importance of their arguments, and the

responsibility of the Receiver and the Court for their errors. Of course, it is true

that, as the Appellants state in the Reinstatement Motion, “the Court possesses the

jurisdiction to vacate the dismissals.” See Reinstatement Motion at 12. However,

the opposite is also true. Whatever the merits or importance of these appeals – and

the Receiver argues that the merits are lacking and the spirit of the Constitution

undimmed – this Court unquestionably has the authority to dismiss for failure to

prosecute based on the Appellants’ egregious disregard for the Court’s prior

rulings, orders, rules, and procedures. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S.

626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (finding that a federal court’s

authority to dismiss for want of prosecution “is necessary in order to prevent undue

delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion” in the court’s



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

8

calendar).1 Other federal courts of appeal have recognized the importance of the

dismissal sanction as a tool to ensure compliance with local rules and have

accordingly rejected pleas for leniency similar to those advanced by the

Appellants. See RLI Insurance Co. v. JDJ Marine, Inc., 716 F.3d 41, 42-45 (2d

Cir. 2013); Guam Sasaki Corp. v. Diana’s Inc., 881 F.2d 713, 716-19 (9th Cir.

1989); Barber v. American Security Bank, 841 F.2d 1159, 1160-62 (D.C. Cir.

1988); Kushner v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., 620 F.2d 404, 405-08 (3d Cir. 1980).

As this Court stated in reviewing a district court’s dismissal sanction:

In the courts, there is room for only so much lenity. The district court must consider the equities not only to plaintiff and his counsel, but also to the opposing parties and counsel, as well as to the public, including those persons affected by the court’s increasingly crowded docket. Counsel must take responsibility for the obligations to which he committed and get the work done by the deadline … Deadlines are not meant to be aspirational; counsel must not treat the goodwill of the court as a sign that, as long as counsel tries to act, he has carte blanche permission to perform when he desires. A

1 The Appellants continue to insist that dismissal of these appeals somehow qualifies as a “forfeiture” of their constitutional right to due process. But the Appellants have clearly been provided with due process – they had the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the sua sponte order (twice), they had notice of the briefing deadline and the Court’s local rules that led to dismissal, and they are now being afforded the opportunity to establish “extraordinary circumstances” justifying reinstatement of their appeals. The Appellants’ persistent invocations of “due process,” in both their procedural motions and their brief, do not justify treating these appeals as constitutional imperatives.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

9

district court must be able to exercise its managerial power to maintain control over its docket.

Young v. City of Palm Bay, Florida, 358 F.3d 859, 864 (11th Cir. 2004).

This rationale applies equally in the instant appeals. If the merits of these

appeals are so compelling and crucial for our constitutional system of government,

then the Appellants and their counsel should have taken every step to ensure they

were timely asserted in compliance with this Court’s rules and orders. As the

Appellants themselves assert, “[a] strong adversary system is what the court system

is all about.” See Reinstatement Motion at 12. But the Appellants and their counsel

failed to take responsibility for their positions by timely filing their brief in

accordance with the dismissal order and the first order denying reconsideration,

instead relying on the improper and frivolous second motion to reconsider. The

ramifications of this strategy under Local Rule 42-2(d) were clear and unmistakable.

The Appellants’ arguments regarding the strength and importance of the

merits are an indictment of the Appellants and their counsel, not an excuse. And, as

evidenced by their conduct in the district court and this Court since 2003, the

Appellants’ unwillingness to timely and properly present their arguments is

pervasive and not a one-time mistake that can be pinned exclusively on counsel. As

indicated in the Receiver’s motions to dismiss, the Appellants have a long history of

failing to present their supposedly compelling arguments regarding the Receiver’s



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

10

and the district court’s actions at the relevant time, and then relying on wasteful and

groundless motions to reconsider, appeals, and extraordinary writs filed years later.2

For example, Appellants Bendall and Geist did not appear in the district court at all

until eight years after the appointment of the Receiver, and never prosecuted a

motion for intervention in the district court; now, they seek in their brief to present

arguments regarding the validity of the Receiver’s appointment and their removal as

directors, thirteen years after the fact. Lauer and Garvey also did not object to the

appointment of the Receiver in the first place, and none of the Appellants timely

filed a claim against the receivership estates by the well-publicized bar date in 2004;

now, they assert that the Receiver owed them fiduciary duties all along, and claim

they are entitled to millions in distributions and offsets.

This is not a case involving a single mistake of procedure by counsel; it is

part of a unified strategy by the Appellants and their counsel to attack decisions

made and actions taken years earlier while they acquiesced or remained

conspicuously silent. In this context, it is proper to attest the errors of counsel to

2 Lauer and Garvey have now filed at least fourteen appeals and extraordinary writ petitions in this Court. This does not include appeals and writs filed by Bendall and Geist. A chronology of these proceedings, originally attached as an exhibit to the SEC’s motion for summary disposition in Case 15-15635 and not including the subsequently-filed Case 16-12055, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. After all of these appeals, the Appellants and their counsel should be experts at complying with the rules and procedures of this Court.



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

11

the clients. “It is true that plaintiff … may have been harmed by his counsel’s

inability to meet deadlines in this case. But, the Supreme Court has said that

clients are to be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys.”

Palm Bay, 358 F.3d at 864. The Appellants “voluntarily chose this attorney” as

their representative in these appeals, and they “cannot now avoid the consequences

of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent. Any other notion would be

wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each

party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent and is considered to have

notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.” See Pioneer

Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 396-97, 113 S.Ct. 1489,

1499, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993).

Finally, it is evident from the Reinstatement Motion and their tardy brief that

the Appellants and their counsel are not truly willing to accept responsibility for

their failure to comply with this Court’s orders and rules, as required to support

invocations of leniency under Local Rule 42-2(e). Although counsel in his

declaration pretends to accept “full responsibility for any and all defaults, mistakes,

and oversights that have occurred in these appeals,” he nevertheless proceeds to

rattle off his qualifications as “an experienced attorney who has litigated major

cases” as evidence for his belief that he “acted diligently” and has not “ignored



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

12

[his] obligation or the orders of the Court.” See Dorsen Declaration at 17-18.

Counsel refuses to admit any sort of error at all. Instead, as asserted in the

Reinstatement Motion, the Appellants blame the Receiver and the Court for their

failure to comply with the Court’s clear and unambiguous orders and rules. If the

Receiver had not filed his motions to dismiss in an attempt to limit costs in these

frivolous appeals, and if the Court had not entered a sua sponte order limiting the

Appellants’ abuse of its jurisdiction, then the Appellants and their counsel would

have timely filed their appeal. This refusal to accept responsibility is appalling.

This is not a typical situation under Local Rule 42-2(e), where a pro se

litigant or counsel admits an honest mistake, apologizes to the Court, submits a

curative brief, and requests leniency. Here, the Court is faced with parties that

refuse to acknowledge their own mistakes, blame the Receiver and the Court for

their failure to review and comprehend unambiguous rules, and file a brief that

blatantly disregards earlier rulings on jurisdiction by including twenty pages of

argument on issues that were specifically dismissed. This is an astonishing level

of contempt for the appellate process and its requirements. Counsel continues to

assert in his declaration that “[w]ith respect, I believed and believe that the Court’s

sua sponte order was plainly incorrect.” See Dorsen Declaration at 21-22. But the

Appellants’ continuing refusal to accept their responsibilities as appellants, to



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

13

comply with orders and rules, and to accept the Court’s decisions evidence that the

Appellants and their counsel have no respect for this Court. In their view, the

Court is in the wrong here: they were justified in not timely filing their brief by this

Court’s errors in the sua sponte order. This is not a request for leniency in the

spirit of Local Rule 42-2(e). The Court should not condone this attitude by

granting the Appellants a second chance afforded apologetic litigants with

compelling explanations for noncompliance.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Receiver respectfully requests that the Court

deny the Reinstatement Motion.

DATED this 7th day of December, 2016.

Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Juan C. Enjamio

Juan C. Enjamio Florida Bar No. 571910 [email protected]

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP Attorneys for Marty Steinberg as Receiver/Appellee Sabadell Financial Center 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: 305.810.2500 Facsimile: 305.810.2460



Case Nos. 15-15635/15-15636/16-12055

14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 7th day of December, 2016, I caused a

true and correct copy of the foregoing Response in Opposition to be sent by

electronic mail to:

Benjamin Vetter, Esq. Litigation Counsel Securities & Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-8010 and David M. Dorsen, Esq. Suite 500 2900 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20007

By: /s/ Juan C. Enjamio Juan C. Enjamio


EXHIBIT A


Chronology of Appeals & Extraordinary Writs

Appeals by Michael Lauer in SEC v. Lauer, No. 03-80612, S.D. Fla. Date District Court

Docket Entry for Notice of Appeal

11th Cir. Docket Number

Disposition

03/19/2004 DE220 04-11366 Dismissed, want of prosecution. See DE340.


05/12/2006 DE1445 06-12887 SEC v. Lauer, 240 Fed. Appx. 355 (11th Cir. 2007) (discovery sanctions affirmed).

12/09/2008 DE2190 08-17050 Dismissed, lack of jurisdiction. See DE2229.


10/07/2009 DE2324 09-15138 SEC v. Lauer, 478 Fed. Appx. 550 (11th Cir. 2012) (final judgment affirmed).

07/19/2013 DE2727 13-13110 SEC v. Lauer, 610 Fed. Appx. 813 (11th Cir. 2015) (denial of motions to vacate the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 affirmed).

08/29/2014 09/18/2014

DE2906 DE2922

14-13931 Dismissed, lack of jurisdiction. See DE2936.

12/18/2015 12/22/2015 12/29/2015 01/07/2016

DE3027 DE3032 DE3035 DE3039

15-15635 Pending.


Extraordinary Writs Sought by Michael Lauer Date Eleventh Circuit Docket Disposition

12/16/2013 In re Michael Lauer, No. 13-15710

(Petition for Mandamus seeking review of Judge Marra’s Order Denying Recusal, DE844 entered in Receiver v. Lauer, No. 05-60584, S.D. Fla. Joined by Martin Garvey on 1/21/2014)

DENIED: 3/27/14.

11/03/2014 In re Michael Lauer, No. 14-14983

(Petition for Mandamus seeking review of Judge Marra’s Order Denying Recusal, DE2809 entered in SEC v. Lauer, No. 03-80612, S.D. Fla.)

DENIED: 12/24/14 Reconsideration DENIED: 2/9/15 Certiorari DENIED: 5/18/2015

Appeals by Martin Garvey in SEC v. Lauer, No. 03-80612, S.D. Fla.Date District Court

Docket Entry for Notice of Appeal

11th Cir. Docket Number

Disposition

11/21/2012 DE2657 12-16068 John W. Bendall, Jr. and Martin Garvey v. Lancer Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 523 Fed. Appx. 554 (11th Cir. 2013) (district court’s denial of Bendall and Garvey’s request for an order that the court-appointed receiver to pay their attorney fees and costs affirmed)

12/18/2015 12/22/2015

DE3027 DE3032

15-15635 Pending.


ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOS. 15-15635/15-15636/16 … from the United States District Court for the...

Documents

Transcript of ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOS. 15-15635/15-15636/16 … from the United States District Court for the...