VILLEHUCHET' ^^/.CLAUp^-^H^j^S^^f*f

Report 4 Downloads 203 Views
JOINDER , TO' BRIEFS^JN^ JfMKjgCnKfflL

RESPONDENTS -^f¥99l^^tf#PSto ADVISORS-' JLLC, ->^CESS >;jIN^jR^p

ADVISORS tUROPE;i:i]NflTCpKAGCE^^] /STTTSSF.Y C*& L. '--.• 'VtACCESS -; vj$MS0*AGE»

ENTRINGER,;^CCESS^ARTPi[ERS S7A^epresen

by its Liquidatbr^TR^^ PATRICK LITTAYE, ;CLAyDINE.,^GpN^DEm^|^f(^

VILLEHUCHET' ^^/.CLAUp^-^H^j^S^^f*f VILLEHUCHET) in her capacity as Executrix under tthe*

Will Of THIERRY MAGON DE LA JVILLEHIXHET (A^AvRENfeTHl|feR^ri7-- ^-——

\

A

+{ '^

. .^AUDINE^GONjDE^^

>' V,fJ^JBHS -"•-V^.'L

... i'

* t

, '»'/"^».'V.'?"5S,< *>*!$*** IS"8*"*"

"- r

n-fjp;

, . *«#••«Jsl-

•?*

^Si

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.

Whether

the

Investor

Securities

Protection Corporation, upon making trustee appointed under the

advances to a Securities Investor

Protection Act ("SIPA") to pay customer claims

against

a failed

brokerage's

becomes

esitate,

subrogated to customers' common-lavjr claims against third parties, even though SIPA provides for only a narrow subrogation right against the estate. 2.

Whether a SIPA trustee may assert

contribution claims to recover payments to customers mandated by SIPA, even though

SIPA does not

provide for such claims, and even though there are no state-law contribution claims her^ to "preempt" because the courts below held that New York law

provides no contribution rights in this case; and whether, by failing to raise it b^low petitioner waived

his

novel

argument

that

under

a

"preemption" analysis, he may assert such claims. 3.

Whether,

contrary

to

this

Court's

decision in Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New York, 406 U.S. 416 (19^/ 2), and uniform decisions of the Courts of Appeals, $ection 544(a) of the Bankruptcy Code confers standi|n g upon a SIPA trustee to assert common-law claiins belonging to individual customers; and whether by expressly abandoning it below, petitioner waited his argument

that Section 544(a) confers such standing

11

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant

to this

Court's

EAile

29.6,

the

respondents hsted below (the "Access Respondents") state that:

Ap.rp.ss Inter™ Q+*""a1 Advisors LLC

Access International Advisors LLC has one

corporate parent, Access International Advisors Inc., and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.

Access International Advisors Europe Limited Access International Advisors Europe

Limited no longer exists and, therefore, it has no parent corporation. No publicly herd corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.

Access Pgrt-nP.ra (Suisse) S.A

Access Partners (Suisse) SA, in liquidation,

has one corporate parent, Access Participation

(Luxembourg), and no publicly helc^ corporation

owns 10% or more of its stock. Apppss Management Luxembourg S.A.

Access Management Luxem bourg SA has one

corporate parent, Access Partners SA, and no

publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of it stock.

Access Partners S

Access Partners SA has no :orporate parent,

and no publicly held corporation owns

10% or more

of its stock.

Grouperr"*"* Financier Ltd

Groupement Financier Ltd a fund, does not have a parent corporation. No publicly held

corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioner seeks review of the Second Circuit's

holding that a trustee of an insolvent broker-dealer appointed under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 ("SIPA"), Pub. L. No . 91- 598, 84 Stat. 1636, 15 U.S.C. § 78aaa et seq., lacks standing to assert claims against third parties that, under this Court's settled authority, belong o the broker's creditors, not to the broker's insolvent estate. This conclusion, about which there is no dispute among the Courts ofAppeals, does not mer^t review by this Court.

JOINDER

None of the questions presented in the petition warrants review by this Court. To avoid duplication, the Access Respondents hereby join in all parts of the accompanying briefs in opposition filed by: (i) the JPMorgan and UBS respondents, and (ii) the HSBC and Unicredit respondents, including but not limited to the legal argument and conclusions made therein.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the C(J)urt should deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. Respectfully submitted, Anthony L. Paccione

Counsel ofRecord Katten Muchin ROSENMAN LLP| 575 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10022

[email protected]

Counselfor AccessInternational Advisors LLC, Access International Advisors Europe Limited, Access Partners (Suisse)

S.A., Access Management Luxembourg S.Jf.

(f/k/aAccess International Advisors (Luxembourg) S.A, , Access Partners S.A., Pierre Delandmeter, and Groupemetkt Financier

December 16, 2013

Recommend Documents