New TelexFree TRO adds Daniil Shoyfer & Scott Miller
The emergence of a new Temporary Restraining Order in the TelexFree civil case has left me stumped.
I’m still trying to suss out what’s going on, but for now here’s a breakdown of what we know.
On the 15th of January Judge Hillman published orders in a number of TelexFree civil cases.
These orders see Hillman
withdraw reference of this adversary proceeding to the United Stats Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts.
“I hereby refer this adversary proceeding to Unites States Bankruptcy Judge Melvin S. Hoffman to rule on any preliminary or pre-trial matters, hear any dispositive motions, conduct a trial if necessary, and submit to me proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to any dispositive motions or trial.”
Now this much I understand. Judge Hillman is punting some of the civil TelexFree cases over to Judge Hoffman in the bankruptcy court.
What I don’t get is that the above order appeared in the SEC’s civil case against TelexFree as Document 377, published January 15th.
Document 375, also published January 15th, is a peculiar order granting a new TRO against Sanderley Rodrigues de Vasconcelos, Santiago De La Rosa, Randy Crosby, Faith Sloan, Daniil Shoyfer and Scott Miller.
Before we get into the new TRO, how is Judge Hillman grating a TRO on a case he’s punted off to the bankruptcy court?
All but two of the named defendants already have already had a TRO entered against them back in April 2014, when the SEC shut TelexFree down.
Hillman’s new order is confusing, in that parties listed stipulates the order applies to “all actions” in the TelexFree securities litigation.
As far as I can see, the only difference between this TRO and the existing preliminary injunction is the addition of Shoyfer and Miller, both of whom were top TelexFree investors.
Which begs the question of why wasn’t a separate TRO filed against them individually?
The other top investors already have preliminary injunctions against them, with a new TRO seemingly redundant (unless I’m missing something?).
The case docket reveals Shoyfer sought immediate clarification on the TRO, regarding funds ‘for ordinary living expenses necessary to house, clothe, transport and feed himself and his family‘.
He’s been directed to provide a full accounting at a hearing on January 25th. This hearing will decide whether or not a preliminary injunction will be granted (against all defendants).
Anyone want to have a crack at explaining what this Hillman’s new TRO is all about?
Update 26th January 2016 – A hearing for a preliminary injunction was held yesterday on the 25th, with the court taking the matter under advisement.
Daniil Shoyfer has filed an objection against the granting of a preliminary injunction, which largely relies on his having a family to feed and that his assets were allegedly purchased prior to his involvement in TelexFree.
Update 20th June 2021 – Daniil Shoyfer has been dismissed from the TelexFree class-action.
It’s probably not so much a second order, but an amendment to the first.
When a new order in a civil action is issued, the previous orders become invalid. If new a new TRO was issued to just cover Shoyfer and Miller, it could be argued the order was lifted on the previously named parties in the actions.
Seems silly, but it has happened. This just keeps things clean and clear.
So they’ve gotta go through the whole preliminary injunction rigmarole again just to add Shoyfer and Miller?
Can those who already have an injunction against them raise objections again? Seems like a bit of a waste of time.
They can raise any new arguments not already presented to the court.
The upside though, is it pulls all of the parties into the same timeline. Shoyfer and Miller’s involvement will not be trailing the actions taken in the earlier mentioned parties.
Convoluted as it is then, I suppose more TelexFree investors having injunctions slapped against them is a good thing.
brace yourselves……the clawbacks are coming.
……the clawbacks are coming (whispers)…….
I have not seen the orders and can’t distinguish what has happened from your write up, but…
The District Court may withdraw the reference and subsequently reinstitute the reference as circumstances warrant.
Hearing was held yesterday, matter has been taken under advisement.
DANIIL SHOYFER WAS SAYING, THAT HE NEVER MADE SO MUCH MONEY, LIKE IN TELEXFREE, HE WAS SCSMMING PEOPLE TO THE LEST MINUTE, BEFORE TELEXFREE CLAIM BANKRUPCY.
HE GOT $90000 from telexfree right before they cklaim bankruptcy, HE BOUGHT THE HOUSE ON STATEN ISLAND FOR 1.5MILLION, FROM THE MONEY HE STALL FROM PEOPLE, AND MERCEDES S500.
LET HIM BURN IN HELL , I CAN TASTED, THAT HE WILL PAID FOR THE EVERYTHING HE IS DONE.
Igor, your keyboard has a capslock key does it not?