848 F. Supp. 2d 469 - Fox v. Picard’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 11 U.S.C. § 541 · 15 U.S.C. § 78E (§ 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78F (§ 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc. · Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg · Turner v. Rogers · Stern v. Marshall
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny BLMIS customer or creditor of the BLMIS estate who filed or could have filed a claim in the liquidation, anyone acting on their behalf or in concert or participation with them, or anyone whose claim in any way arises from or is related to BLMIS or the Madoff Ponzi scheme, is hereby permanently enjoined from asserting any new claim against the Picower BLMIS Accounts or the Picower Releasees that is duplicative or derivative of the claims brought by the Trustee, or which could have been brought by the Trustee against the Pi-cower BLMIS Accounts or the Picower Releasees....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Allowing the Florida Actions to go forward would carry real risks to the estate, implicating the viability of the current settlement and the possibility of future settlements, and providing an avenue for BLMIS customers who are displeased with the Net Equity Decision to undermine that decision by directly pursuing claims that are wholly derivative of claims already brought by the Trustee.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even if the Trustee might be barred from asserting the claims against the Picower defendants in the Florida Actions in the exact form in which the Appellants have pleaded them, that fact cannot be dispositive of the question of whether the Florida Actions are covered by the automatic stay. To apply Wagoner here, where the Trustee did not bring the Florida Actions, would perversely require ruling on a hypothetical controversy over the Trustee’s standing to bring an action that the Trustee never brought when the Trustee had the right and the standing to bring the New York Action alleging fraudulent conveyances and when the Florida Actions are an end run around the New York Action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.