Janvey v. Venger et al, No. 3:2010cv00366 - Document 406 (N.D. Tex. 2014)

Court Description: Order Adopting 398 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 104 MOTION to Dismiss, 129 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 5/7/2014) (jrr)

Download PDF
Janvey v. Venger et al Doc. 406 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RALPH S. JANVEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIGUEL VENGER, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0366-N ORDER This Order addresses the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge [doc. 398]. After conducting a review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are correct, with the following clarification. As stated by the Fifth Circuit, “a federal equity receiver has standing to assert only the claims of the entities in receivership, and not the claims of the entities’ investor-creditors.” Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., Inc., 712 F.3d 185, 190 (5th Cir. 2013). The Fifth Circuit still held, however, “that a receiver may sue on behalf of the receivership entity under a state uniform-fraudulent-transfer law to recover assets fraudulently transferred by the Ponzi-scheme principal without commensurate consideration to third parties.” Id. (citing Scholes v. Lehmann, 56 F.3d 750, 753–55 (7th Cir. 1995)). Furthermore, to the extent that defendants’ standing arguments rely upon comity issues related to the Antiguan Joint ORDER – PAGE 1 Dockets.Justia.com Liquidators, such arguments should be considered moot in light of the settlement agreement between the Receiver and the Joint Liquidators. See Order Approving Settlement Agreement and Cross-Border Protocol, Apr. 11, 2013 [1844], in SEC v. Stanford Int’l Bank, No. 3:09-CV-0298-N (N.D. Tex. filed Feb. 17, 2009). Pursuant to the above clarification, the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are hereby adopted as the determinations of the Court. Thus, the Court denies Defendants Moore, Moore and Moore LLC, Namada Investment Group L.P., and Sococo LTDA’s motion to dismiss [104] and Defendant Timothy C. Moore’s, in his capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Nathan Allen Moore, motion to dismiss [129]. Signed May 7, 2014. _________________________________ David C. Godbey United States District Judge ORDER – PAGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.