UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL LAUER, LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP II, LLC, Defendants, and LANCER OFFSHORE, INC., LANCER PARTNERS, LP, OMNIFUND, LTD., LSPV, INC., and LSPV, LLC, Relief Defendants. / RECEIVER’S MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS MILTON H. BARBAROSH AND STENTON LEIGH CAPITAL CORP. EXPEDITED RELIEF REQUESTED: BARBAROSH IS BEING SENTENCED IN HIS CRIMINAL ACTION ON JULY 22, 2011 AND HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS SETTLEMENT BE APPROVED BEFORE THAT DATE. THE RECEIVER HAS AGREED TO REQUEST THAT THIS COURT CONSIDER THE MOTION BEFORE THE SENTENCING DATE AND REQUESTS ENTRY OF AN APPROVAL ORDER BEFORE JULY 22, 2011 IF POSSIBLE, AND THAT THE TIME FOR NOTICE AND REPLIES UNDER LOCAL RULE 7.1 BE SHORTENED TO ACCOMMODATE THIS REQUEST. Marty Steinberg, Esq. (the “Plaintiff” or “Receiver”), as Court-appointed Receiver for Lancer Management Group, LLC (“LMG”), Lancer Management Group II, LLC (“LMG II”), Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 1 of 23
84
Embed
Motion for approval - w_ AK edits__35837785___2_.DOC
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 03-80612 CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL LAUER, LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and LANCER MANAGEMENT GROUP II, LLC,
RECEIVER’S MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT ANDCOOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS
MILTON H. BARBAROSH AND STENTON LEIGH CAPITAL CORP.
EXPEDITED RELIEF REQUESTED: BARBAROSH IS BEING SENTENCED IN HIS CRIMINAL ACTION ON JULY 22, 2011 AND HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS SETTLEMENT BE APPROVED BEFORE THAT DATE. THE RECEIVER HAS AGREED TO REQUEST THAT THIS COURT CONSIDER THE MOTION BEFORE THE SENTENCING DATE AND REQUESTS ENTRY OF AN APPROVAL ORDER BEFORE JULY 22, 2011 IF POSSIBLE, AND THAT THE TIME FOR NOTICE AND REPLIES UNDER LOCAL RULE 7.1 BE SHORTENED TO ACCOMMODATE THIS REQUEST.
Marty Steinberg, Esq. (the “Plaintiff” or “Receiver”), as Court-appointed Receiver for
Lancer Management Group, LLC (“LMG”), Lancer Management Group II, LLC (“LMG II”),
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 1 of 23
- 2 -
Lancer Offshore, Inc. (“Offshore”), Omnifund, Ltd. (“Omnifund”), LSPV, Inc. (“Offshore
2 of the Receivership Order directs the Receiver to:
Investigate the manner in which the affairs of LMG, LMG II, Offshore, Omnifund, Offshore LSPV, and Partners LSPV were conducted and investigate such actions and legal proceedings, for their benefit and on their behalf, and on behalf of the Funds’ investors and other creditors, as the Receiver deems necessary....
3. On April 16, 2003, Partners filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Connecticut (the “Connecticut Bankruptcy Court”).3 On July 24, 2003, the Connecticut
Bankruptcy Court entered an Order recognizing the Receiver as the responsible person for
Partners by virtue of the Receiver’s control of LMG II, Partners’ general partner (the “July 24
Order”). The July 24 Order and the Receivership Order each empowers the Receiver to initiate
litigation against various insiders of the Funds on behalf of the Lancer Entities.
4. On September 3, 2003, the District Court entered an order expanding the scope of
the Receivership Order to include AOG and GHA as Receivership Entities (the “Order
Extending Receivership”). The Order Extending Receivership also empowers the Receiver to
bring the Insider Action on behalf of AOG and GHA.
5. On December 3, 2003, the District Court entered an order granting the Receiver’s
Motion for Reappointment (the “Reappointment Order”). Between December 3, 2003 and
December 13, 2003, the Receiver filed a copy of the Reappointment Order in every United States
1 The Receiver refers to LMG and LMG II collectively as the “Management Companies.” Terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Second Amended Complaint [DE 358] filed in the case styled Receiver of Lancer Management Group LLC et al. v. Michael Lauer et al., Case No. 05-60584-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON (the “Insider Action”).
2 Offshore, Omnifund, Partners, Offshore LSPV, and Partners LSPV are hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Funds”.
3 The Partners’ bankruptcy case is now pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case Number 06-11721-BKC-JKO.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 3 of 23
- 4 -
judicial district in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 754. The Reappointment Order similarly
empowers the Receiver to bring the Insider Action on behalf of the Lancer Entities.
6. On April 15, 2005, the Receiver filed his Complaint against several insiders of the
Lancer Entities, including Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh, initiating the Insider Action. On April
15, 2008, the Receiver filed his Second Amended Complaint. By the Second Amended
Complaint, the Receiver seeks damages, on behalf of the Lancer Entities, for the misconduct of
Lauer and various other defendants, including Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh. Specifically, the
Receiver alleges counts against Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh for aiding and abetting breach of
breach of contract (Count VI); and equitable restitution under ERISA §§ 502(a)(3) and 502(I)
(Count IX).
7. The Receiver commenced the Insider Action on behalf of the Lancer Entities
against Lauer and his business and personal associates, including Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh,
for their alleged fraudulent actions that improperly depleted the assets of the Funds primarily for
their own benefit. Among other things, the Receiver alleges that Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh
breached their fiduciary duties to use reasonable care in providing business valuation and
appraisal services to the Funds. The Receiver alleges that Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh
dramatically overstated the value of certain Lancer-Controlled Shells, and that Barbarosh and
Stenton Leigh acted in a misleading manner and either failed to perform sufficient research and
obtain adequate information to prepare their appraisals, or acted negligently and carelessly by
misapplying the facts. The Insider Action was initiated on behalf of all the Funds and asserts
claims for damages caused directly to the Funds by Lauer, Barbarosh, Stenton Leigh, and the
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 4 of 23
- 5 -
other defendants, as opposed to any damages that Lauer, Barbarosh, Stenton Leigh, and the other
defendants may have caused to the Funds’ investors and creditors.
8. The unliquidated damages sustained by the Lancer Entities due to the misconduct
of Lauer and the other defendants in the Insider Action are significant, and the Receiver alleges
that Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh are partially responsible for the losses.
9. Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh denied all material allegations raised by the
Receiver in the Insider Action.
10. On August 15, 2008, the Receiver filed his Sixth Amended Complaint against
numerous defendants including Stenton Leigh in the District Court (Case No. 04-60899-CIV-
MARRA) (the “Alpha Fifth Action”). Pursuant to the Alpha Fifth Action, the Receiver seeks,
among other things, the recovery of $390,483.47 in alleged fraudulent transfers made to Stenton
Leigh by the Lancer Entities.
11. Stenton Leigh denied all material allegations raised by the Receiver in the Alpha
Fifth Action.
12. Barbarosh is an individual resident of Boca Raton, Florida. Barbarosh is the
president, sole director, and a beneficial owner of Stenton Leigh, the vehicle through which he
performed business valuations and appraisal services for the Lancer Entities.
13. As a result of Barbarosh’s and Stenton Leigh’s action or inaction, as the case may
be, the Funds have been allegedly damaged in a number of ways as more fully described in the
Second Amended Complaint in the Insider Action and the Sixth Amended Complaint in the
Alpha Fifth Action.
14. On or about January 29, 2008, the United States of America (“U.S.A.”) indicted
Barbarosh and certain other Lancer Entities’ insiders for conspiracy to commit wire, mail and
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 5 of 23
- 6 -
securities fraud (Count 1) and wire fraud (Counts 2-7) (the “Indictment”) in a criminal case
styled United States of America v. Michael Lauer, et al., Case No. 08-20071-CR-JORDAN
pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the
“Criminal Case”). A true and correct copy of the Indictment is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
15. On or about May 11, 2010, Barbarosh plead guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment in
the Criminal Case. Shortly thereafter, Barbarosh and the U.S.A. entered into a Plea Agreement
in the Criminal Case based upon willful blindness. A true and correct copy of the Plea
Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
16. Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh generally deny the Receiver’s allegations and do not
admit civil liability to the Receiver as a result of the allegations against Barbarosh and Stenton
Leigh in the Insider Action and the Alpha Fifth Action.
17. Based upon certain representations made by Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh related
to their inability to pay a substantial settlement, and Barbarosh’s ability as an alleged former
insider of the Lancer Entities to assist the Receiver in his investigation and prosecution of certain
litigation, the Receiver, the Liquidating Trustee, Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh have entered into
the Settlement Agreement subject to District Court and Bankruptcy Court approval.
II. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
18. The Receiver, on behalf of the Lancer Entities, the Liquidating Trustee, and
Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh, recently conducted extensive settlement negotiations culminating
in a settlement, subject only to court approval that resolves the Insider Action and the Alpha
Fifth Action against Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh on the terms and provisions articulated in the
Settlement Agreement. In reaching that compromise, the Receiver exercised his sound business
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 6 of 23
- 7 -
judgment and determined that it is in the best interest of the Lancer Entities and their creditors to
enter into the Settlement Agreement.
19. The following is a summary of the material terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement:4
• In satisfaction of all of the Receiver’s and the Liquidating Trustee’s claims against Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh in the Insider Action and the Alpha Fifth Action, Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh shall pay the Receiver $150,000.00 in the aggregate (the “Settlement Amount”) payable as follows: an initial payment of $75,000.00, to be paid to the Receiver upon the execution of this Settlement Agreement, which initial installment shall be held in trust by Barbarosh’s counselpending entry of final and non-appealable orders by the District Court and the Bankruptcy Court (the “Final Orders”); plus six subsequent successive monthly payments of $12,500.00 each to be made commencing on the later of July 1, 2011or 30 days from the date of the Final Orders. The Settlement Amount shall be distributed between the Receiver and the Liquidating Trustee as follows: Receiver - $127,500.00; Liquidating Trustee - $22,500.00. The Settlement Amount distributed to the Receiver and the Liquidating Trustee is net of the claims that the Receiver’s and the Liquidating Trustee’s respective estates hold against each other.
• The Receiver and the Liquidating Trustee agree that any funds Barbarosh pays to the Receiver under this settlement shall be credited against any restitution obligation to the Probation Department of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida upon approval by the District Court in the Criminal Case.
• Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh consent to the entry of a civil judgment against them jointly and severally for the respective amounts sought by the Receiver on behalf of the Lancer Entities in the Insider Action (the “Insider Judgment”). The amount of the Insider Judgment shall be equal to the amount of restitution ordered against Barbarosh in the Criminal Case, if any, provided, however, that the amount of the Insider Judgment shall be not less than $150,000.00.
• Stenton Leigh consents to the entry of a civil judgment against it for the respective amounts sought by the Receiver on behalf of the Lancer Entities in the Alpha Fifth Action in the amount of $500,000.00 (the “Alpha Fifth Judgment,” and together with the Insider Judgment, the “Judgments”).
4 The following summary is entirely qualified by the Settlement Agreement. It is the Settlement Agreement and not this Motion that governs the rights and obligations of the parties regarding the settlement and compromise. If there is any conflict between the Settlement Agreement and the terms and conditions summarized in this Motion, the Settlement Agreement shall control.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 7 of 23
- 8 -
• The Receiver shall retain possession of, but shall not record, the Judgments pending his receipt of the final payment of the Settlement Amount and confirmation that the information, documents, financial statements, Financial Affidavit (as hereinafter defined) and Proffer provided by Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh are true and accurate and not otherwise materially misleading, false or incorrect. The Receiver shall have two years from the date of entry of the Final Orders to review the information provided by the Barbarosh Entities. At the expiration of such period, the Receiver shall waive the Judgments unless the Receiver has filed a motion with the District Court seeking an extension of the deadline for cause, and affording the Barbarosh Entities an opportunity to respond.
• To the extent not already provided, Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh agree to provide, to the extent available, to the Receiver upon execution of the SettlementAgreement: (i) current personal financial and corporate statements and copies of federal income tax returns for the tax years 2003-2010 inclusive; (ii) independent sworn financial affidavits (the “Financial Affidavits”) affirming and disclosing their current financial condition, including, without limitation, the extent of their respective assets, income, net worth and all property transfers equal to or greater than $10,000 in value or amount from January 1, 2003 through the present, and (iii) Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh shall use their best efforts to provide any additional financial disclosure when requested by the Receiver in writing for any other periods. Assuming full disclosure of their financial condition as of the date of the Settlement Agreement, any future change in financial condition of Barbarosh or Stenton Leigh shall not be taken into account in determining Barbarosh’s ability to pay, the truthfulness of his financial condition as represented, or a violation of the Settlement Agreement.
• In the event Barbarosh or Stenton Leigh fails to make any of the payments due under the Settlement Agreement, or if Barbarosh fails to cooperate as set forth in the Settlement Agreement or if the Receiver discovers any material inaccuracies or misrepresentations regarding the information contained in the personal financial and corporate statements or in the Financial Affidavits, upon the expiration of ten (10) days prior written notice to Barbarosh or Stenton Leigh allowing for a cure of any default, the Receiver may record and execute upon the Judgments entered against them forthwith. The notice shall specify the nature of the default(s) and the form of an acceptable cure of the default(s). Barbarosh shall be entitled to judicially contest any determination by the Receiver that he or Stenton Leigh has breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Receiver will have two (2) years from the date of entry of the Final Orders to provide a notification to Barbarosh or Stenton Leigh that the Receiver has discovered material inaccuracies or misrepresentations regarding the information contained in the personal financial and corporate statements or in the Financial Affidavits.
• Upon his receipt of the Settlement Amount, and confirmation of the accuracy of the information documents, financial and corporate statements, Financial Affidavits, and Proffer, the Receiver shall deliver to Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 8 of 23
- 9 -
the original Judgments and, a Satisfaction of Judgment, and provided Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh are otherwise in compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, execute and deliver releases to Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh.
• Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh shall continue to provide truthful and complete information and testimony, in addition to the production of documents, records and other evidence, if and/or when called upon by the written request of theReceiver or his professionals, whether in interviews, for a sworn statement, in depositions, trial or any other court proceeding. If able to do so, Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh shall appear at depositions, hearings, trials and other judicial proceedings and at meetings and interviews as required by the Receiver or his counsel. In the event of incarceration, the Receiver shall petition the Court to enable Barbarosh to present himself for cooperation with the Receiver.
• Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh shall not intentionally seek to protect any person or entity through false or misleading information or omissions, and likewise shall not falsely implicate any person or entity.
III. MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The “All Writs Act,” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides a district court with the authority to
enter orders that protect its jurisdiction and ensure enforcement of its orders. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651(a) (2003). Section 1651(a) provides:
The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principals of law.
Id. Section 1651(a) provides a district court with a “legislatively approved source of procedural
instruments designed to achieve ‘the rational ends of the law’.” See United States v. New York
Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 172 (1977). Pursuant to § 1651(a), a district court, unless
specifically confined by Congress, “may avail itself of all auxiliary writs as aids in the
performance of its duties, when the use of such historic aids is calculated in its sound judgment
to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to it.” See id. (quoting Adams v. United States ex rel
McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 273 (1942)). The authority granted to a district court under § 1651(a)
should be applied flexibly where in conformity with these principals. See id.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 9 of 23
- 10 -
The Court’s utilization of the All Writs Act in the instant case is particularly appropriate
as the Settlement Agreement will implement this Court’s directive articulated in the Receivership
Order. The Receivership Order authorizes the Receiver to “institute such actions and legal
proceedings” against third parties on behalf of the Receivership Entities and to “compromise or
settle [these] legal actions.” See Receivership Order at ¶¶ 2, 6. Moreover, the Receiver may
enter into “agreements as may be reasonable, necessary and advisable in discharging the
Receiver’s duties.” See id. at ¶ 8. The Settlement Agreement, which settles the Insider Action
and the Alpha Fifth Action against Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh, enables the Receiver to
discharge his duty on behalf of the Lancer Entities in a just and efficient manner.
A. The Receivership Order Authorizes Approval of the Settlement Agreement
In considering whether to approve a settlement brokered by an equity receiver, a district
court will examine the parameters of the receivership order’s mandate. In SEC v. Credit
Bancorp, Ltd., 2001 WL 1658200 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2001), when faced with a federal
equity receiver’s motion to approve a settlement with a creditor, the court held that “[i]t is
enough that the Receiver’s request for settlement falls well within the broad discretion granted to
him by the January 2000 Order and the ordinary powers of a receiver.” In that case, the January
2000 Order authorized the receiver to “investigate, prosecute, … compromise and adjust actions
in any state, federal or foreign court or proceeding of any kind as may in his sole discretion be
advisable to or proper to recover or conserve funds, assets, or property of Credit Bancorp.”
Id. at *1. The court reasoned that this comports with the ordinary practice of receivers: “[T]he
receiver has the power, when so authorized by the court, to compromise claims either for or
against the receivership and whether in suit or not in suit.” Credit Bancorp, 2001 WL 1658200
at *2 (quoting 3 Ralph Ewing Clark, A Treatise on the Law and Practice of Receivers, § 770
(3d ed. 1959)). Subsequently, in SEC v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd., 2002 WL 1792053 at *4 -*5
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 10 of 23
- 11 -
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2002), the court approved another receiver settlement with broker-dealers
because it was within the receiver’s discretion based on the January 2000 Order and the ordinary
practice for receivers.
Similar to the Credit Bancorp receivership order, this Court’s Receivership Order
empowers the Receiver to “institute such actions and legal proceedings … [to recover]
wrongfully, illegally or otherwise improperly misappropriated or transferred monies or other
proceeds directly or indirectly traceable from investors in the Funds” against third parties “as the
Receiver deems necessary” and to “defend, compromise or settle legal actions.” See
Receivership Order at ¶¶ 2, 6. The Receivership Order also directs the Receiver to make “such
agreements as may be reasonable, necessary and advisable in discharging the Receiver’s duties.”
See id. at ¶ 8. The Receiver has executed the Settlement Agreement as he deems it essential to
the resolution of the Receiver’s claims, and it comports with the ordinary practice of receivers.
Therefore, the Settlement Agreement falls squarely within the Receiver’s mandate from this
Court. Accordingly, the Court should approve the Settlement Agreement. See SEC v. Credit
Bancorp, Ltd., 2001 WL 1658200 at *2; SEC v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd., 2002 WL 1792053 at *4 -
*5.
B. The Terms of the Settlement Agreement Meetthe Standards for Approval under Applicable Law
In Sterling v. Stewart, 158 F.3d 1199, 1203 (11th Cir. 1998), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed the fairness of a receiver’s settlement of claims. In
Sterling, shareholders appealed the district court’s approval of a settlement proposed by a
receiver that terminated their derivative suit. Id. at 1200-01. The shareholders argued that the
district court erred because it did not apply “vigorous scrutiny” in evaluating the receiver’s
settlement as required by Delaware law, but instead relied upon the less stringent standards
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 11 of 23
- 12 -
articulated in Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir. 1977) (stating that the “District
Court must find that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable”) and the six-factor test for
fairness under Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982 (11th Cir. 1984). In evaluating whether
the settlement was fair, the district court examined: (1) the likelihood of success at trial; (2) the
range of possible recovery; (3) the point on or below the range of possible recovery at which
settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable; (4) the complexity, expense, and duration of the
litigation; (5) the substance and amount of opposition to the settlement; and (6) the stage of
proceedings at which the settlement was achieved. See id. at 1204 n.6 (citing Bennett, 737 F.2d
at 986). The Sterling court affirmed the receiver’s settlement after it considered the extensive
discovery conducted by the receiver, the receiver’s analysis of the underlying facts, the
defendants’ defenses, and the shareholders’ presentations at the fairness hearing. See id.
In this case, the Settlement Agreement is equally fair, adequate, and reasonable. See
Cotton, 559 F.2d at 1330. All applicable Bennett factors favor approval of the Settlement
Agreement. The cases against Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh are factually and legally complex.
The Receiver has conducted an extensive and thorough investigation of the facts and legal issues
alleged in the Insider Action and the Alpha Fifth Action which spanned a period of several years,
and included, more than 110 witness interviews. Under these circumstances, obtaining
judgments against Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh at trial would be both, time consuming and
expensive. Moreover, under the Settlement Agreement, Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh are
consenting to civil judgments, Barbarosh through his Financial Affidavit has represented his
insubstantial net worth to the Receiver, and Barbarosh continues to be obligated to cooperate
with the Receiver in his continuing investigation and pending litigations. Even assuming a total
victory at trial, the Receiver cannot improve upon the Funds’ recovery from Barbarosh and
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 12 of 23
- 13 -
Stenton Leigh much more than the recovery provided under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. Hence, this settlement saves the Receivership Estates exponential discovery, motion
practice and trial costs.
In applying the Bennett standard, the probability of any litigation resulting in a similar or
better outcome than the proposal delineated in the Settlement Agreement weighs heavily in favor
of approving the Settlement Agreement. The costs and attorneys’ fees associated with
continuing to litigate this matter will be significant. Further, assuming the Receiver is successful
and obtains judgments against Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh, the continued litigation expense
will further deplete the unencumbered assets currently available to Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh
and diminish the collectability of any judgments.
Because greater expense, inconvenience and delay will be needlessly incurred by the
Lancer Entities if the Barbarosh and Stenton Leigh settlement is not approved and consummated,
the Court should approve the Settlement Agreement in its entirety as being in the best interest of
the Receivership Estates.
WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing reasons, the Receiver respectfully requests
that the Court: i) enter an order substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A; ii) grant
the relief requested by this Motion; iii) approve the compromise between the Parties as more
fully described in the attached Settlement Agreement; and iv) grant the Receiver such other and
further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 13 of 23
- 14 -
Dated: July 8, 2011Miami, Florida
HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLPCounsel for the Receiver1111 Brickell Avenue - Suite 2500Miami, FL 33131Tel: (305) 810-2500Fax: (305) 810-2460
/s/ Andrew KamenskyJuan C. Enjamio (FBN 571910)Andrew Kamensky (FBN 127574)
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 14 of 23
- 15 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via
First Class U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail upon the parties set forth on the Master Service List
this 8th day of July, 2011.
/s/ David BaneDavid Bane
64036.000002 EMF_US 35837785v2
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 15 of 23
LANCER RECEIVERSHIP CASE NO. 03-80612-MARRA/JOHNSON
MASTER SERVICE LIST
Christopher MartinSenior Trial CounselU.S. Securities & Exchange Commission801 Brickell Avenue - Suite 1800Miami, Fl 33131
Michael Lauer101 West End Ave., Apt. 8PNew York, New York 10023
Michael LobsingerBay No. 4, 12110 40th Street SECalgary, Alberta, Canada T2Z 4K6
Mark S. GregoryDelphine W. Knight BrownKelley Drye & Warren LLPTwo Stamford Plaza281 Tresser BoulevardStamford, CT 06901
Robert B. LovettSeyfarth Shaw, LLPWorld Trade Center East, Suite 300Two Seaport LaneBoston, MA 02210Counsel for Dean M. Willard
Patricia BearyOffice of the U.S. TrusteeOne Century Tower, Suite 1103265 Church StreetNew Haven, CT 06510
Zi CorporationAttn: PresidentSuite 2100, 840 - 7 Avenue SWCalgary, Alberta Canada T2P 3G2
James M. Nugent, Esq.KFP Investors PartnershipJames M. NugentHarlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C.300 Bic DriveMillford, CT 06460
Clayton CunninghamP.O. Box 1796 El Segundo, CA 90245Returned mail
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 17 of 23
Michael Lauer, pro se101 West End Ave., Apt. 8PNew York, New York [email protected]
Scott M. Berman, Esq.Anne E. Beaumont, Esq.Friedman, Kaplan,Siiler & Adelman LLP1633 Broadway , 46th FloorNew York, NY [email protected]/[email protected]
Carol FelicettaReid and Riege, P.C.195 Church Street, 15th FloorNew Haven, CT 06510Counsel for Equity [email protected]
David L. Snyder, Esq.Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber One South Street, 27th FloorBaltimore, MA [email protected]/[email protected]
Rudolph F. Aragon, Esq.White & CaseWachovia Financial Center, Suite 4900200 South Biscayne BoulevardMiami, Florida [email protected]
Salvatore A. Barbatano, Esq.Foley & LardnerOne Detroit Center150 W. Jefferson, Suite 1000Detroit, MI 48226-2616 [email protected]
Lewis N. BrownDyanne E. Feinberg, Esq.Gilbride, Heller & Brown, PA.One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1570Two South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131
Andrew L. JiranekMcKennon Shelton & Henn LLP401 East Pratt St., Suite 2315Baltimore, Md. [email protected]
Richard E. JohnstonFasken Martineau DuMoulin LLPPatent & Trade Mark AgentsP.O. Box 20, Toronto Dominion Centre66 Wellington St. W, 37th FloorToronto, Ontario M5K 1N6 Canada
Mr. Dylan WolffManaging Director Norges Investor ValueP.O. Box 1863 Vika0124 Oslo - [email protected]
Seth M. Schwartz, Esq.Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPFour Times SquareNew York, New York [email protected].
John Hochman, Esq.Schindler Cohen & Hochman LLP100 Wall Street, 15th FloorNew York, New York [email protected]
Robert Pershes, Esq.Buckingham, Doolittle & Bouroughs, LLP5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900Boca Raton, FL [email protected]
Paul Steven SingermanBerger Singerman200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1000Miami, Florida [email protected]
Robert T. Wright, Esq.Coffey & Wright, LLPGrand Bay Plaza, Penthouse 2B2665 S. Bayshore DriveMiami, FL [email protected]
William R. Maguire, Esq.Jeffrey Greilsheimer, Esq.Hughes Hubbard & Reed, LLPOne Battery Park PlazaNew York, NY [email protected]@hugheshubbard.com
William S. Fish, Esq.William H. Champlin, Esq.Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP20 Church Street Hartford, CT [email protected]/[email protected]
Robert E. Grossman/Scott S. BalberChadbourne & Parke LLP30 Rockefeller PlazaNew York, NY 10112 [email protected]/[email protected] for Amatra and Ajial
Kristina M. Bakardjiev, EsquireGoldstein, Tanen & Trench, P.A.One Biscayne Tower, Suite 37002 South Biscayne BoulevardMiami, FL [email protected]
Drew M. Dillworth, Esq.Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff Sitterson150 West Flagler Street, Ste 2200Miami, FL [email protected]
David Barrack, Esq.Hal M. Hirsch, Esq.Greenberg Traurig, LLPMet Life Building200 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10166
Peter VigelandWilmerHale399 Park AvenueNew York, NY [email protected]
Mark A. SalzbergFoley & LardnerWashington Harbour, Suite 5003000 K Street N.W.Washington, D.C. [email protected]
William J. BarrettBarack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Perlman & Nagelberg LLP333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700Chicago, IL [email protected]
Susan V. Demers, Esq.Price Findlay & Co.Tropic Isle Building, BVIP.O. Box 3331Road Town, Tortola British Virgin Islands
Annabel Bogaerts Deutsche Bank (Suisse) S.A. /Private Wealth Management GIS Core Banking/Quai du Seujet 24 P.O. Box 1416 CH-1211 Geneva 1 Swisse [email protected]
Michael A. Hanzman, Esq.Hanzman & Criden, P.A.Commerce Bank Building220 Alhambra Circle - Suite 400Coral Gables, Florida 33134E-mail : [email protected]
Michael J. Dell, Esq.Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP919 Third AvenueNew York, New York 10022E-mail: [email protected]
Donald Workman, Esq.Foley & Lardner3000 K Street, N.W.Suite 500Washington, D.C. E-mail: [email protected]
Timothy P. Harkness, Esq.Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP919 Third AvenueNew York, New York 10022E-mail: [email protected]
Daniel A. Casey, Esq.Kirkpatrick & LockhartMiami Center - 20th Floor201 S. Biscayne Blvd.Miami, FL 33131E-mail: [email protected]
Gregory L. McClellandMcClelland & Anderson LLP1305 S. Washington AvenueSuite 102Lansing, MI 48910E-mail: [email protected]
Greg T. ArnoldBrown Rudnick Berlack IsraelsOne Financial CenterBoston, MA 02111
Lynda Grant, Esq.Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, Pllc150 East 52 St., 30th floorNew York, NY [email protected]
Jeffrey Greilsheimer, Esq.Hughes Hubbard and Reed, LLPOne Battery Park PlazaNew York, New York 10004E-mail: [email protected]
Brian C. Courtney, Esq.Rome, McGuigan, Sabanosh, PCOne State StreetHartford, CT 06103-3402
Dr. Dieter Zetsche DaimlerChrysler AG70546 Stuttgart (Möhringen)Germany
Gerry LaBush, Esq.711 Third AvenueSuite 1505New York, New York 10017Removed upon Request
Howard L. SiegelBrown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLPCityplace I, 38th Floor185 Asylum AvenueHartford, CT 060103
Garry M. GraberHodgson Russ LLPOne M&T Plaza, Suite 2000Buffalo, New York 14203
Gary S. KleinSandak Hennessey & Greco970 Summer StreetStamford, CT 06905
Anthony & Patricia O’Callagahan/Christopher B. O’Callaghan/Diane J. Nelson/John P. HeffernanAttn: Timothy T. BrockSatterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP230 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10169
Mercedes G. HalePiper Rudnick LLP101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2000Tampa, FL 33602
J. Bruce MaffeoMeyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. 1350 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10018Counsel for Martin [email protected]
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 19 of 23
ABERDEEN INVESTMENTS LTD.C/O SIMONE VON GRAFFENP.O. BOX 300
8034 ZURICH, SWITZERLAND
AIS HOLDINGS SERIES TRUST IIC/O COMMERZBANKTWO WORLD TRADE CENTER31ST FLOORNEW YORK, NY 10281ATTN: CHRISTIAN BERGERON
ANDRE CHAGNONC/O NORMAND GREGOIRE2001, MCGILL COLLEGE AVE.SUITE 1000MONTREAL, QUEBEC H3A 1G1
ABSA BANK LIMITED AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF THE CORONATION INTERNATIONAL ACTIVE FUND OF FUNDSC/O ABSA INVESTOR SERVICESATTN: HILDA DE VILLIERS6TH FLOOR, ABSA TOWERS NORTH180 COMMISSIONER STREETJOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA
BANCO NOMINEES (IOM) LTD.P.O. BOX 3412/13 HILL STREETDOUGLAS IM99 1BWISLE OF MAN
COMMONFUND GLOBAL HEDGED PARTNERS C/O COMMONFUND ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.ATTN: JOHN W. AUCHINCLOSS, GENERAL COUNSEL15 OLD DANBURY ROADWILTON, CT 06896
CONDOR ALTERNATIVE FUNDC/O JEAN FRANCOIS SCHMITT42 AV. MONTAIGNE75008 PARIS, FRANCE
COMBE SECURITIESC/O LGT, VADUZLGT BANK IN LIECHTENSTEIN AGPOSTFACHFL-9490 VADUZ
FIRST TRUST CORPORATION TTEE FBO JOSEPH CUETER, ACCT # 031-038-12-836P.O. BOX 173301DENVER, CO 80217
DECTON LIMITEDC/O LGT, VADUZLGT BANK IN LIECHTENSTEIN AGPOSTFACHFL-9490 VADUZ
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 20 of 23
DELPHI GLOBAL LTD.OCTOGONE GESTION SA26 RUE DE CANDOLLE1205 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
FONDATION J. ARMAND BOMBARDIERC/O LYNN LAVIOESUN LIFE BUILDING1155 METCALFE - SUITE 2100MONTREAL QC, H3B 2V6CAHADA
RCA IN TRUSTCLAUDIA REINHOLD1604 ST. REGIS BLVD.DORVAL, QUEBEC CANADA H9P 1H6
ROTHSCHILD & CIE BANQUE29, AVENUE DE MESSINE75008 PARISFRANCE
REGIME DE RENTES DU MOUVEMENT DESJARDINSJEAN-FRANCOIS DELISLE100, AVENUE DES COMMANDEURSLEVIS (QUEBEC) CANADA G6V 7N5
SATNAM INVESTMENTS INC. C/O EFG PRIVATE BANKATTN: FRANZ WILLF1 RAFFLES PLACE#42-00 OUB CENTERSINGAPORE 048616
SEVEN SEAS PORTFOLIO A LTD.ADRIANA COLINA-MENGELLEC/O MIF SA86 RUE DE RHONEP.O. BOX 3436CH 1211 GENEVA 3SWITZERLAND
SIMISA INTERNATIONAL/ISCANDAR INC.OCTOGONE GESTION SA26 RUE DE CANDOLLE1205 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
SOJECCI II LTEE (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS 9091-2601 QUEBEC INC., AN ASSIGNEE OF SOJECCI LTEEC/O NORMAND GREGOIRE2001, MCGILL COLLEGE AVE.SUITE 1000MONTREAL, QUEBEC H3A 1G1CANADA
SPGP142, BOULEVARD HAUSSMAN75008 PARISFRANCE
STARVEST FUNDS, LTD.C/O VINCENT CAMPAGNAWAFRA INVESTMENT ADVISORY GROUP, INC.345 PARK AVE.41ST FLOORNEW YORK, NY 10154-0101
STATE STREET TRUSTEES (GUERNSEY) LIMITEDAS CUSTODIAN FOR NEMROD LEVERAGED HOLDINGS LIMITED ATTN: ANDREW THOMPSONP.O. BOX 2382nd FLOOR TUDOR HOUSELE BORDAGEST. PETER PORT, GUERNSEY GY1 3PF CHANNEL ISLANDS
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 22 of 23
SUZANNE FONTANC/O D. HALARD29 RUE BONAPARTE75006 PARIS, FRANCE
TEAM HAAS USA, LTD. FACT INC, 1035 ANTIQUE LN NORTHBROOK, IL 60062
THE ARROWSMITH FUND, LTD.C/O DION BETHELL/DEBORAH C. WATSONDOCKENDALE HOUSE4TH FLOORWEST BAY ST.P.O. BOX N-4836NASSAU, BAHAMAS
THE CORBETT FAMILY CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, INC.RICHARD A. CORBETT2202 N. WEST SHORE BLVD.SUITE 110TAMPA, FL 3360
THE DEVON TRUSTC/O DENNIS NERLANDSHEANERLAND CALNAN715 5TH AVE. SW , SUITE 1900CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 2X6CANADA
THE ISRAEL HENRY BEREN CHARITABLE TRUST2020 NORTH BRAMBLEWOOD STREETWICHITA, KS 67206
THE MORTON MEYERSON FAMILY FOUNDATION3401 ARMSTRONG AVE.DALLAS, TEXAS 75205
THE STAFFORD FUND, LTD., SUCCESSOR TO THE STAFFORD OPPORTUNITY FUND, LTD.CHARLES E. ABRECHTFAIRWAY INVESTMENT PARTNERS, INC.622 GREENWICH STREETSUITE 2-BNEW YORK, NY 10014
THE MEYERSON 1999 CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST3401 ARMSTRONG AVE.DALLAS, TEXAS 75205
THE PENSION COMMITTEE OF THE REGIME DE RERAITE DE LA CORPORATION DE ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUEC/O BERNARD SANSCHAGRINECOLE POLYTECHNIQUEC.P. 6079, SUCCE. CENTER VILLAMONTREAL QCCANADA, H3C 3A7
THE PENSION COMMITTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL PENSION PLAN IN ITS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL PENSION PLANANDREE MAYRANDUNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL INVESTMEMT MANAGEMENT, PENSION FUND7077 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 2002MONTREAL QC H3N 1X7 CANADA
VENERE INVESTMENTS LIMITEDC/O FIDUCIAIRE TUCKER SARLCH DE LA PIERRARE 3a1026 DENGESSWITZERLAND
VESTA FORKSIKRING AS PO BOX 7070 5020 BERGEN NORWAY
FIRST TRUST CORPORATION TTEE FBO/SHIRLEY A. SIMONACCT #031-038-12-835P.O. BOX 173301DENVER, CO 80217-3301
SIL NOMINEESC/O SHIELD MANAGEMENT SERVICES165 CROSS AVENUE, SUITE 302OAKVILLE, ONTARIO, CANADA L6J OA9
ONE MULTI-STRATEGY FUND LTD.C/O CIRCLE INVESTMENT SUPPORT SERVICES B.V.ATTN: Mr. Simon Hiemstra/Mrs. Eva SlovenciakovaP.O. BOX 20523800 CB AMERSFOORTTHE NETHERLANDS
DAVID NATHAN MEYERSONPRIVATE FOUNDATIONATTN: MORTON H. MEYERSONP.O. BOX 192607DALLAS, TX 75219
64036.000002 EMF_US 36145264v1
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 23 of 23
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 1 of 2
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 2 of 2
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 1 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 2 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 3 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 4 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 5 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 6 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 7 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 8 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 1 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 2 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 3 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 4 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 5 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 6 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 7 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 8 of 8
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 1 of 4
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 2 of 4
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 3 of 4
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 4 of 4
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 1 of 4
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 2 of 4
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 3 of 4
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 4 of 4
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 1 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 2 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 3 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 4 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 5 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 6 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 7 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 1 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 2 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 3 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 4 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 5 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 6 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 7 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 8 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 9 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 10 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 11 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 12 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 13 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 14 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 15 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 16 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 17 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 18 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 19 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 20 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 21 of 21
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 1 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 2 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 3 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 4 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 5 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 6 of 7
Case 9:03-cv-80612-KAM Document 2456-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2011 Page 7 of 7