In Re: Fairfield Sentry Limited
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-03911
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Fairfield Sentry v. Citibank NA London, Judge Broderick lifted a stay, ordered schedule discussions, and preserved the parties’ appeal positions.
Fairfield Sentry Limited (In Liquidation), Kenneth Krys in his stated representative capacities, Citibank NA London, and the parties in the consolidated appeal cases listed in Exhibit A.
What happened
In Fairfield Sentry Limited (In Liquidation), et al. v. Citibank NA London, et al., the court addressed briefing for appeals that had been stayed.
The court lifted the stay covering briefing on the previously noticed appeals involving issues that had awaited further proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court. It also directed the parties to discuss and submit proposed briefing schedules by April 22, 2021, including schedules for newer appeals.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick stated that the order did not affect the parties’ reserved rights or waive any argument about whether an issue had been properly raised or preserved for appeal.
The detailed version
- In Re: Fairfield Sentry Limited · No. 1:19-cv-03911
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 17, 2021
Background
Fairfield Sentry Limited (In Liquidation), acting through its Foreign Representative, and Kenneth Krys, solely in his capacity as Foreign Representative and Liquidator, were plaintiffs-appellants. Citibank NA London was the defendant-appellee. The order also applied to the consolidated appeal cases listed in Exhibit A.
A September 11, 2019 order had stayed briefing on appeals previously noticed by the plaintiffs in May 2019. The stay covered certain issues that were subject to further briefing before the Bankruptcy Court.
Order
The court lifted the stay as to briefing on those previously noticed appeals, identified as the “2019 Stayed Appeals.”
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about a proposed briefing schedule for the 2019 Stayed Appeals and for any new appeals noticed from the recent Bankruptcy Court decisions and related implementing orders identified in the order. The parties were required to submit a joint schedule, or competing schedules if they could not agree, by April 22, 2021.
Preservation of Rights
Except as expressly provided, the order did not prejudice any rights reserved by the parties. The court stated that nothing in the order constituted agreement by any party about whether an issue had been properly raised or preserved for appeal, and that no party waived or forfeited any position or argument on those questions.
Disposition
This was a case-management order concerning appellate briefing. It lifted the specified stay and set a deadline for the parties to propose briefing schedules; it did not decide the underlying appeals.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.