Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Oasis International Group, Limited

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: March 15, 2023
• Docket: 8:19-cv-00886
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 8:19-cv-886-VMC-SPF

OASIS INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 705), filed on January 27, 2023. Objections have been filed by six different beneficiaries of the receivership estate. (Doc. ## 718–723). The Court- appointed Receiver responded on March 3, 2023. (Doc. # 729). The Court adopts the report and recommendation and grants the Receiver’s Motion for an Order (1) Approving a First Interim Distribution of $10 Million; (2) Approving the Receiver’s Final Determinations Regarding Unperfected or Incomplete Claims; and (3) Overruling Limited Objections to Certain Claim Determinations (Doc. # 694) to the extent stated herein. Discussion After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept,

reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Flynn’s Report and Recommendation as well as the Objections thereto, the Court overrules the Objections and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Fynn’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds that the

Objections do not provide a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 705) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) The Receiver’s Motion for an Order (1) Approving a First Interim Distribution of $10 Million; (2) Approving the Receiver’s Final Determinations Regarding Unperfected or Incomplete Claims; and (3) Overruling Limited Objections to Certain Claim Determinations (the “First Interim Distribution Motion”) (Doc. # 694) is GRANTED as

follows: a. A first interim distribution of $10 million, as set forth in the Motion and in Exhibits 1 and 2, is approved and authorized. b. The objections to the Receiver’s determinations of Claims 782-V, 404, and 759 are overruled. c. The Receiver is authorized to honor requests to change the name of a claimant or payee of a claim if, in the Receiver’s discretion, he is provided reasonable proof of the new

recipient’s right to the distribution. d. The Receiver is authorized to reissue distribution checks initially made payable to deceased claimants to the appropriate entity or person if, in the Receiver’s discretion, he is provided reasonable proof of the new recipient’s right to the distribution. e. Any deposit or other negotiation of distribution check is deemed a waiver of all arguments made outside the Objection Procedure, including those made through the stricken “declarations,” Notices, and altered

or incomplete Personal Verification Forms (as defined in the Motion). If a claimant negotiates a check, the claimant is deemed to have accepted the information provided in the Proof of Claim as true and correct under penalty of perjury. If a claimant does not agree with the distribution amount or any aspect of the distribution process, he or she must not negotiate the pertinent check and may not participate in the distribution. Any alteration or appendment of conditions to the

check is deemed a violation of the Court’s Order. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 15th day of March, 2023. lagi Fp. Heenarly Cry, VIR IA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE