DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DG weer eee ee ee ee ee ee ------ x DATE FILED: _ 6/26/2024 In re CUSTOMS AND TAX ADMINISTRATION OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK (SKAT) TAX REFUND 18-md-2865 (LAK) LITIGATION This document applies to: Cases listed in Appendix A ce eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee eee eH HH KH HX
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appearances: Marc A. Weinstein William R. Maguire Neil J. Oxford HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Thomas E.L. Dewey Sean K. Mullen DEWEY PEGNO & KRAMARSKY LLP Elliot R. Peters Julia L. Allen KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP Attorneys for Defendant Michael Ben-Jacob Sharon L. McCarthy KOSTELANETZ & FINK, LLP Attorney for Defendants John van Merkensteijn, LIT, Elizabeth van Merkensteijn, Azalea Pension Plan, Basalt Ventures LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Bernina Pension Plan, BerninaPension Plan Trust, Michelle Investments Pension Plan, Omineca Pension Plan, Omineca Trust, Remece Investments LLC Pension Plan, Starfish Capital Management LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Tarvos Pension Plan, Voojo Productions LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Xiphias LLC Pension Plan
2 Alan E. Schoenfeld WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP Attorney for Defendants Richard Markowitz, Jocelyn Markowitz, Avanix Management LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Batavia Capital Pension Plan, Calypso Investments Pension Plan, Cavus Systems LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Hadron Industries LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, RJM CapitalPension Plan, RJM Capital Pension Plan Trust, Routt Capital Pension Plan, Routt Capital Trust David L. Goldberg Michael M. Rosensaft Zhanna A. Ziering KATTEN MUNCHIN ROSENMAN LLP Attorneys for Defendants Robert Klugman, RAK Investment Trust, Aerovane Logistics LLC Roth 401K Plan, Edgepoint Capital LLC Roth 401K Plan, Headsail Manufacturing LLC Roth 401K Plan, The Random Holdings 401K Plan, The Stor Capital Consulting LLC 401K Plan LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge. Before the Court are two motions for the issuance of a request for international judicial assistance, commonly termed a “letter rogatory.”1 For the reasons explained below, both motions are denied. Facts This multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) includes more than one hundred actions brought by the Customs and Tax Administration of the Kingdom of Denmark (“SKAT”) in a number of districts throughout the country to recover funds allegedly obtained from it by fraud. SKAT alleges 1 Dkts 979, 983, 989. Unless otherwise noted, all docket citations are to 18-md-2865. that the defendant pension plans and their agents and representatives engaged in a fraudulent tax refund scheme or “trading strategy” whereby they “falsely represented that the plans owned shares in Danish companies, that taxes had been withheld on the dividends, and as tax-exempt entities, they were entitled to refunds.”” SKAT alleges further that, in consequence of these false representations, it paid to defendants over 12.7 billion Danish Kroner, the equivalent of approximately $2.1 billion U.S. dollars, to which they had no legitimate claim. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the cases brought by SKAT in other districts to this Court.’ In a November 2021 pretrial order, the Court set a deadline of December 3, 2021 for all fact discovery to be completed and a deadline of April 8, 2022 for all expert discovery to be completed.* The Court established also a procedure for motions for summary judgment in seven “bellwether” cases. Among other things, the Court ordered that the bellwether defendants and plaintiff file a joint Rule 56.1 statement of the material facts as to which there was no genuine dispute.’ In that joint Rule 56.1 statement, which was filed in April 2022, the parties set out, among other things, the mechanics of the trading strategy at the center of this case.° Subsequently, the Court denied the bellwether defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a Dkt 1 at 1. Dkt 1. The fifty-three actions brought by SKAT in this district previously were consolidated for pretrial purposes. Dkt 924 at 5 & n.8 Yn re Customs & Tax Admin. of the Kingdom of Denmark (SKAT) Tax Refund Litig., No. 18-cv-04051, 2023 WL 8039623, at *2 & n.8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2023)]. Dkt 675. Dkt 675. Dkt 790.
November 2023 opinion.’ Earlier this year, the Court issued a pretrial order selecting a subset of cases to be tried in “Trial One.”* The Court subsequently set a number of pretrial deadlines, including for motions for summary judgment, and scheduled the trial to begin in January 2025.° Weeks after the Trial One scheduling order was issued, defendants filed the first of the motions for discovery now before the Court. That motion, which SKAT joined conditionally, sought issuance by this Court of a letter of request to obtain testimony from Sanjay Shah, a non- party witness and the alleged progenitor of the fraudulent scheme, in Denmark pursuant to the Hague Convention.’ Shah, an investment banker who, through his company Solo Capital, designed and executed the trading strategy, is currently on trial for tax fraud in Denmark, to which he was extradited from the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) in December 2023.'' According to defendants, Shah testified in his Danish trial “in his own defense and. . . his testimony included explanations of the [t]rading [s]trategy.””” The Court held a pretrial conference to consider defendants’ motion and to seek
; Dkt 924. Dkt 961. Those cases are listed in Appendix A. Several of the bellwether defendants are defendants in Trial One. Dkts 978, 987. 10 Dkts 979, 980, 981. 11 Dkt 984 at 2-3. 12 Dkt 984 at 3.
5 clarification regarding several points. Among other things, the Court expressed its concern that, should it issue the requested letter and Denmark act favorably upon it, a delay in taking Shah’s testimony could be used by defendants to seek to delay the trial. Defendants declined to assure the Court that they would commit to proceeding to trial as scheduled regardless of whether Shah’s
testimony was taken.13 The Court also advised defendants to clarify certain points in their motion and to consider including in a revised letter of request a list of questions to be posed to Shah if the Danish court questioned him instead of permitting the parties’ counsel to do so.14 Thereafter, defendants filed a motion to amend/correct their motion for discovery.15 Though they stated that they had “no current intention of seeking to move the trial date” should they be unable to take Shah’s testimony before the start of Trial One, they declined to “categorically waive their right to do so.”16 In addition, defendants revised the proposed letter rogatory “to request the opportunity to submit to the Danish Court a list of questions to be posed to Shah in the event the examination is to be conducted by the Danish Court,” but they did not submit those questions to this Court.17 SKAT opposed the motion.18 Subsequently, defendants submitted a list of questions for
13 Dkt 1008. 14 Dkt 1008. 15 Dkt 983. 16 Dkt 984 at 1. 17 Dkt 984 at 8. 18 Dkt 992. 6 the Danish court to ask Shah, if necessary.19 The day after defendants filed their motion to amend/correct, SKAT moved for this Court to issue a letter of request to obtain testimony from Anthony Mark Patterson.20 Patterson, a former employee of Shah and Solo Capital, recently pled guilty to criminal tax fraud in Denmark
for activity arising from his involvement with the allegedly fraudulent scheme. Plaintiff stated that it “expects that Patterson will testify . . . that Shah and defendants’ ‘trading strategy’ was a fraudulent scheme comprised of fictitious, circular transactions that did not result in the defendant plans owning any Danish shares or receiving any dividends on Danish shares from which tax was withheld.”21 This motion was made contingent upon the Court issuing defendants’ proposed letter of request for Shah’s testimony.22 Defendants opposed SKAT’s motion.23
Discussion Legal Standard
United States courts may request the assistance of a competent authority of another nation in obtaining evidence.24 Such letters, “traditionally known as letters rogatory[,] are a medium 19 Dkt 1014. 20 Dkt 989. 21 Dkt 990 at 6. 22 Dkt 990 at 1. 23 Dkt 994. 24 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b). for one country to speak through its courts to another, and request assistance to administer justice in the former.””° The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague Convention”), to which the United States is a signatory, prescribes certain procedures by which a judicial authority in one signatory state may request the assistance of another.”° Requests for assistance, however, are not limited to requests made to signatories of the Hague Convention. “Absent a treaty, the request is made and usually granted by reason of comity.”’’ Authorities in receiving countries enforce letters rogatory pursuant to their own statutes, common laws, and procedures.** This means that the parties to the litigation for which the letter rogatory was issued may not be allowed to question the witness themselves; rather, a court in the receiving country may question the witness on the parties’ behalf.”
25 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 28.12 (2024). 26 See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Jowa, 482 U.S. 522, 524 (1987). 27 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 28.12 (2024). Similarly, requests made pursuant to the Hague Convention are usually — but not always — granted. 28 See Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, art. 9, Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555; Lantheus Med. Imaging, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 841 F. Supp. 2d 769, 777 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 29 See Mark R. Anderson, Stranger in a Strange Land: Discovery Abroad, 24 Litigation (1998).
8 “It is well settled that the decision of whether to issue letters rogatory lies within a district court’s sound discretion.”30 In considering whether to issue a letter rogatory, “court[s] consider[] the relevance and importance of the sought-after information and the delay issuing the letter would cause.”31 “Although the party seeking” issuance of a letter rogatory “bears the burden
of persuasion, . . . that burden is not a heavy one.”32 This burden is heightened, however, where, as here, discovery has closed. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit — but do not oblige — a court to reopen discovery, it may do so only “for good cause.”33 “Courts in this Circuit generally consider six factors when determining whether a party has established good cause to re-open discovery:”34 “(1) whether trial is imminent, (2) whether the request is opposed, (3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, (4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, (5) the foreseeability of the need
for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by 30 United States v. Al Fawwaz, No. S7 98-cr-1023 (LAK), 2014 WL 627083, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2014) (alteration marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Jefferson, 594 F.Supp.2d 655, 675 (E.D. Va. 2009); accord Villella v. Chem. & Mining Co. of Chile Inc., No. 15-cv- 2106 (ER), 2018 WL 2958361, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2018); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 28.12 (2024). 31 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 28.12 (2024); see Villella, 2018 WL 2958361, at *3. 32 Villella, 2018 WL 2958361, at *3. 33 Fed R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 34 Costa v. Sears Home Improvement Prod., Inc., 178 F. Supp. 3d 108, 111 n.2 (W.D.N.Y. 2016). the district court, and (6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.’”*
Application The testimony defendants seek from Shah would be of little value but seeking to secure it at this late date would pose a considerable risk to the timely conduct of Trial One and thus to the overall progress of this MDL. Based on defendants’ representations and their proposed questions, it appears that many subjects on which Shah would testify would be cumulative of other evidence and witnesses available in the United States. Defendants state that “[t]estimony from Shah may help the jury understand .. . . the [t]rading [s]trategy” and its “execut[ion].’*° But the joint Rule 56.1 statement
— to which plaintiff and many of the defendants in Trial One joined — sets out the mechanics and execution of the trading strategy in considerable detail. Among other things, it explains SKAT’s administration of dividend withholding, how the trading strategy worked, specific trades that defendants made, defendants’ tax reclaim applications, and SKAT’s approval and subsequent revocation of those reclaims.*’ The Court concludes, therefore, that there is sufficient evidence aside from Shah’s testimony regarding the trading strategy and its execution such that introducing Shah’s potential testimony at Trial One would be unlikely to add materially to the jury’s understanding of 35 Fed. Ins. Co. v. Mertz, No. 12-cv-1597 (NSR), 2015 WL 5769945, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2015); see Jacobs v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 11-cv-5058, 2015 WL 7568642, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2015); Costa, 178 F. Supp. 3d at 111 n.2. 36 Dkt 984 at 7. 37 Dkt 790.
10 these topics. Defendants state also that Shah’s testimony “may also help illuminate what [they] knew about the [t]rading [s]trategy... . explaining what information was (and was not) shared with [them].”** But it is likely that defendants themselves could testify to what Shah told them, and they are, generally speaking, available in the United States.*” Although the Court cannot and does not prejudge the admissibility of hypothetical testimony, it notes that such testimony from defendants
— regarding what Shah told them, the impressions with which they were left from their conversations with Shah, and related subjects — may be admissible as non-hearsay.”° In addition, issuing the letter rogatory for Shah’s testimony would risk delaying Trial One, which is scheduled to begin in about six months. It is unclear whether and when Danish authorities might permit defendants to take Shah’s testimony were this Court to request it. It is unclear also how the pendency of Shah’s criminal trial in Denmark might affect the timing of Danish authorities’ decision whether to act favorably upon the requested letter rogatory or how, should they act favorably, the Danish criminal proceeding might affect the timing of Shah’s testimony in this case. And should a Danish court decide to question Shah in lieu of permitting the parties’ counsel to do so, further delay is possible should either of the parties seek to submit additional questions. Concern over a months- or even years-long delay is not unfounded. Moore’s cautions that
38 Dkt 984 at 8. 39 See United States v. Rosen, 240 F.R.D. 204, 215 (E.D. Va. 2007) (the fact that “proffered testimony ... is... cumulative of other testimony from witnesses available in the U.S.” “counsel[s] against the issuance of letters rogatory”). 40 See United States v. Dupree, 706 F.3d 131, 136 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[A] statement offered to show its effect on the listener is not hearsay.”).
11 “discovery through [letters rogatory] can be a very lengthy process... . Execution of letters may take from six months to one year, or even longer.”"' Even if Shah’s testimony were secured expeditiously, there would be no assurance that delay would not result if, for example, his testimony were to prompt one of the parties to seek additional discovery. The Court is particularly averse to risking delay in this case, which already has been pending for more than six years, absent an unforseen and compelling justification, because the upcoming trial would be only the first of what may prove to be several trials in this MDL, and any delay to it is likely to have knock-on effects for subsequent trials, should they prove necessary. Defendants attempt to excuse their delay in seeking Shah’s testimony on the ground that he was inaccessible to them “during the discovery phase of this litigation because he resided in the United Arab Emirates, a non-signatory to the Hague Convention.”” This excuse is unpersuasive. Execution of the Hague Convention is not a prerequisite to the issuance or honoring of a letter rogatory.* The letter rogatory is a centuries-old judicial vehicle that predates the Hague Convention, and they continue to be issued and honored outside the framework established by that treaty.“ As one magistrate judge in this district observed, “the [Hague] Convention was drafted to
Al 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 28.12 (2024). 42 Dkt 984 at 2. 43 See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 28.12 (2024); 35A C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure § 615 (“The execution of a letter rogatory in the first instance rests upon principles of international comity.”). 44 See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 (2004) (citing Act of Mar. 2, 1855, ch. 140, § 2, 10 Stat. 630, and Act of Mar. 3, 1863, ch. 95, § 1, 12 Stat. 769); David Rubinstein, Judicial Assistance As Intended: Reconciling § 1782’s Present Practice with Its Past, 123 Colum. L. Rev. 513, 518-522 (2023).
12 expand and liberalize the previously available avenues for discovery, not to constrict them or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of the signatory states.”*° Thus, even where no treaty obliges a state to honor requests for judicial assistance, such requests are “usually granted by reason of comity.””° Moreover, while defendants claim that the UAE is “a nation adverse to facilitating foreign discovery through the letters rogatory process,’””” they do not dispute that the UAE “executed a letter rogatory issued by a U.S. court... in March 2021, i.e., more than eight months before discovery closed in these actions.”** In addition, defendants could have sought Shah’s voluntary testimony, but it does not appear that they made any effort to do so. Putting that aside, even if Shah were inaccessible to defendants while in the UAE, defendants nonetheless would be responsible for an unwarranted delay in seeking the letter rogatory in light of the fact that Shah was extradited to Denmark, a Hague Convention signatory, in December 2023, several months before defendants sought his testimony in this case.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for issuance of a request for international judicial assistance to obtain evidence from Shah (Dkts 979, 983) is denied.
45 Int'l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 105 F.R.D. 435, 445 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). 46 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 28.12 (2024); see, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 688 F. Supp. 92,95 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (sending request for international judicial assistance to appropriate authority in Uruguay, a non-signatory of Hague Convention). 47 Dkt 984 at 2. 48 Dkt 990 at 7.
13 Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for issuance of a request for international judicial assistance to obtain evidence from Patterson (Dkt 989) is denied as moot.”
SO ORDERED. Dated: June 26, 2024
Lewis A, i United States District Judge
49 Plaintiff's motion was made contingent upon the Court issuing defendants’ proposed letter of request for Shah’s testimony. Dkt 990 at 1.
Case Name & Number Defendants Included Defendants Excluded in Trial Proposal from Trial Proposal 1 Skatteforvaltningen v. Aerovane Michael Ben-Jacob, Logistics LLC Roth 401K Plan, Robert Klugman, and Robert Klugman, and Michael Aerovane Logistics Ben-Jacob, Case No. 18-cv- LLC Roth 401K Plan 07828-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 2 Skatteforvaltningen v. Albedo Michael Ben-Jacob, Joseph Herman and Management LLC Roth 401(K) Robert Klugman, Albedo Management LLC Plan, Joseph Herman, Michael Richard Markowitz, Roth 401(K) Plan Ben-Jacob, Avanix Management Avanix Management LLC, RAK Investment Trust, LLC, and RAK Richard Markowitz, and Robert Investment Trust Klugman, Case No. 19-cv-01785- LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 3 Skatteforvaltningen v. Avanix Michael Ben-Jacob, Management LLC Roth 401K Richard Markowitz, Plan, Richard Markowitz, and and Avanix Michael Ben-Jacob, Case No. 19- Management LLC cv-01867-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Roth 401K Plan 4 Skatteforvaltningen v. Azalea Elizabeth van Pension Plan and Elizabeth van Merkensteijn and Merkensteijn, Case No. 19-cv- Azalea Pension Plan 01893-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 5 Skatteforvaltningen v. Ballast Michael Ben-Jacob, Joseph Herman and Ballast Ventures LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Robert Klugman, Ventures LLC Roth Joseph Herman, Michael Ben- Richard Markowitz, 401(K) Plan Jacob, Cavus Systems LLC, RAK Cavus Systems LLC, Investment Trust, Richard and RAK Investment Markowitz, and Robert Klugman, Trust Case No. 19-cv-01781-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Skatteforvaltningen v. Bareroot Michael Ben-Jacob, David Zelman and Capital Investments LLC Roth Robert Klugman, Bareroot Capital 401(K) Plan, David Zelman, Richard Markowitz, Investments LLC Roth Michael Ben-Jacob, RAK RAK Investment 401(K) Plan Investment Trust, Routt Capital Trust, and Routt Trust, Richard Markowitz, and Capital Trust Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv- 01783-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Case Name & Number Defendants Included Defendants Excluded in Trial Proposal from Trial Proposal 7 Skatteforvaltningen v. Basalt Michael Ben-Jacob, Ventures LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, John van John van Merkensteijn, and Merkensteijn, and Michael Ben-Jacob, Case No. 19- Basalt Ventures LLC cv-01866-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Roth 401(K) Plan 8 Skatteforvaltningen v. Batavia Richard Markowitz Capital Pension Plan and Richard and Batavia Capital Markowitz, Case No. 19-cv- Pension Plan 01895-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 9 Skatteforvaltningen v. Battu Michael Ben-Jacob, David Zelman and Battu Holdings LLC Roth 401K Plan, Robert A. Klugman, Holdings LLC Roth 401K David Zelman, Michael Ben- John van Plan Jacob, Omineca Trust, John van Merkensteijn, Merkensteijn, RAK Investment Omineca Trust, and Trust, and Robert A. Klugman, RAK Investment Trust Case No. 19-cv-01794-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 10 Skatteforvaltningen v. Bernina John van Merkensteijn Pension Plan and John van and Bernina Pension Merkensteijn, Case No. 19-cv- Plan 01865-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 11 Skatteforvaltningen v. Calypso Jocelyn Markowitz, Investments Pension Plan, and and Calypso Jocelyn Markowitz, Case No. 19- Investments Pension cv-01904-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Plan 12 Skatteforvaltningen v. Cantata Michael Ben-Jacob, David Zelman and Cantata Industries LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Robert Klugman, John Industries LLC Roth David Zelman, Michael Ben- van Merkensteijn, 401(K) Plan Jacob, John van Merkensteijn, Omineca Trust, and RAK Investment Trust, Omineca RAK Investment Trust Trust, and Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv-01798-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 13 Skatteforvaltningen v. Cavus Michael Ben-Jacob, Systems LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Richard Markowitz, Richard Markowitz, and Michael and Cavus Systems Ben-Jacob, Case No. 19-cv- LLC Roth 401(K) 01869-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Plan 14 Skatteforvaltningen v. Cedar Hill Michael Ben-Jacob, Edwin Miller and Cedar Capital Investments LLC Roth Robert Klugman, Hill Capital Investments 401(K) Plan, Edwin Miller, Richard Markowitz, LLC Roth 401(K) Plan Michael Ben-Jacob, RAK RAK Investment Investment Trust, Routt Capital Trust, and Routt Trust, Richard Markowitz, and Capital Trust Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv- 01922-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Case Name & Number Defendants Included Defendants Excluded in Trial Proposal from Trial Proposal 15 Skatteforvaltningen v. Crucible Michael Ben-Jacob, Ronald Altbach and Ventures LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Robert Klugman, John Crucible Ventures LLC Ronald Altbach, Michael Ben- van Merkensteijn, Roth 401(K) Plan Jacob, John van Merkensteijn, Omineca Trust, and RAK Investment Trust, Omineca RAK Investment Trust Trust, and Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv-01800-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 16 Skatteforvaltningen v. Dicot Michael Ben-Jacob, David Zelman and Dicot Technologies LLC Roth 401(K) Robert Klugman, John Technologies LLC Roth Plan, David Zelman, Michael Ben- van Merkensteijn, 401(K) Plan Jacob, John van Merkensteijn, Omineca Trust, and Omineca Trust, RAK Investment RAK Investment Trust Trust, and Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv-01788-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 17 Skatteforvaltningen v. Eclouge Michael Ben-Jacob, Perry Lerner and Eclouge Industry LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Robert Klugman, Industry LLC Roth 401(K) Perry Lerner, Michael Ben-Jacob, Richard Markowitz, Plan RAK Investment Trust, Routt RAK Investment Capital Trust, Richard Markowitz, Trust, and Routt and Robert Klugman, Case No. Capital Trust 19-cv-01870-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 18 Skatteforvaltningen v. Edgepoint Michael Ben-Jacob, Capital LLC Roth 401K Plan, Robert Klugman, Robert Klugman, and Michael Edgepoint Capital Ben-Jacob, Case No. 18-cv- LLC Roth 401K Plan 07827-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 19 Skatteforvaltningen v. Fairlie Michael Ben-Jacob, Joseph Herman and Fairlie Investments LLC Roth 401(K) Robert Klugman, Investments LLC Roth Plan, Joseph Herman, Michael Richard Markowitz, 401(K) Plan Ben-Jacob, Hadron Industries Hadron Industries LLC, RAK Investment Trust, LLC, and RAK Richard Markowitz, and Robert Investment Trust Klugman, Case No. 19-cv-01791- LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 20 Skatteforvaltningen v. First Ascent Michael Ben-Jacob, Perry Lerner and First Worldwide LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Robert Klugman, Ascent Worldwide LLC Perry Lerner, Michael Ben-Jacob, Richard Markowitz, Roth 401(K) Plan RAK Investment Trust, Routt RAK Investment Capital Trust, Robert Klugman, Trust, and Routt and Richard Markowitz, Case No. Capital Trust 19-cv-01792-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Case Name & Number Defendants Included Defendants Excluded in Trial Proposal from Trial Proposal 21 Skatteforvaltningen v. Fulcrum Michael Ben-Jacob, Edwin Miller and Fulcrum Productions LLC Roth 401(K) Robert Klugman, John Productions LLC Roth Plan, Edwin Miller, Michael Ben- van Merkensteijn, 401(K) Plan Jacob, RAK Investment Trust, Omineca Trust, and Robert Klugman, John van RAK Investment Merkensteijn, and Omineca Trust, Trust, Case No. 19-cv-01928-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 22 Skatteforvaltningen v. Green Scale Michael Ben-Jacob, Edwin Miller and Green Management LLC Roth 401(K) Robert Klugman, Scale Management LLC Plan, Edwin Miller, Michael Ben- Richard Markowitz, Roth 401(K) Plan Jacob, RAK Investment Trust, RAK Investment Routt Capital Trust, Robert Trust, and Routt Klugman, and Richard Markowitz, Capital Trust Case No. 19-cv-01926-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 23 Skatteforvaltningen v. Hadron Michael Ben-Jacob, Industries LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Richard Markowitz, Richard Markowitz, and Michael and Hadron Industries Ben-Jacob, Case No. 19-cv- LLC Roth 401(K) 01868-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Plan 24 Skatteforvaltningen v. Headsail Michael Ben-Jacob, Manufacturing LLC Roth 401K Robert Klugman, and Plan, Robert Klugman, and Headsail Michael Ben-Jacob, Case No. 18- Manufacturing LLC cv-07824-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Roth 401K Plan 25 Skatteforvaltningen v. Keystone Michael Ben-Jacob, Edwin Miller and Technologies LLC Roth 401(K) Robert Klugman, Keystone Technologies Plan, Edwin Miller, Michael Ben- Richard Markowitz, LLC Roth 401(K) Plan Jacob, RAK Investment Trust, RAK Investment Robert Klugman, Routt Capital Trust, and Routt Trust, and Richard Markowitz, Capital Trust Case No. 19-cv-01929-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 26 Skatteforvaltningen v. Limelight Michael Ben-Jacob, Ronald Altbach and Global Productions LLC Roth Robert Klugman, John Limelight Global 401(K) Plan, Ronald Altbach, van Merkensteijn, Productions LLC Roth Michael Ben-Jacob, Robert Omineca Trust, and 401(K) Plan Klugman, RAK Investment Trust, RAK Investment Trust Omineca Trust, and John van Merkensteijn, Case No. 19-cv- 01803-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Case Name & Number Defendants Included Defendants Excluded in Trial Proposal from Trial Proposal 27 Skatteforvaltningen v. Loggerhead Michael Ben-Jacob, Perry Lerner and Services LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Robert Klugman, Loggerhead Services LLC Perry Lerner, Michael Ben-Jacob, Richard Markowitz, Roth 401(K) Plan RAK Investment Trust, Richard RAK Investment Markowitz, Robert Klugman, and Trust, and Routt Routt Capital Trust, Case No. 19- Capital Trust cv-01806-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 28 Skatteforvaltningen v. Michelle Richard Markowitz, Investments Pension Plan, John John van van Merkensteijn, and Richard Merkensteijn, and Markowitz, Case No. 19-cv- Michelle Investments 01906-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Pension Plan 29 Skatteforvaltningen v. Monomer Michael Ben-Jacob, Robin Jones and Monomer Industries LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Robert Klugman, John Industries LLC Roth Robin Jones, Michael Ben-Jacob, van Merkensteijn, 401(K) Plan John van Merkensteijn, Omineca Omineca Trust, and Trust, RAK Investment Trust, and RAK Investment Trust Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv- 01801-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 30 Skatteforvaltningen v. Omineca Michael Ben-Jacob, Pension Plan, John van John van Merkensteijn, and Michael Ben- Merkensteijn, and Jacob, Case No. 19-cv-01894- Omineca Pension Plan LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 31 Skatteforvaltningen v. PAB Michael Ben-Jacob, Perry Lerner and PAB Facilities Global LLC Roth Robert Klugman, Facilities Global LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Perry Lerner, Richard Markowitz, 401(K) Plan Michael Ben-Jacob, RAK RAK Investment Investment Trust, Richard Trust, and Routt Markowitz, Robert Klugman, and Capital Trust Routt Capital Trust, Case No. 19- cv-01808-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 32 Skatteforvaltningen v. Pinax Michael Ben-Jacob, Robin Jones and Pinax Holdings LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Robert Klugman, John Holdings LLC Roth Robin Jones, Michael Ben-Jacob, van Merkensteijn, 401(K) Plan John van Merkensteijn, Omineca Omineca Trust, and Trust, RAK Investment Trust, and RAK Investment Trust Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv- 01810-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 33 Skatteforvaltningen v. Plumrose Michael Ben-Jacob, Ronald Altbach and Industries LLC Roth 401K Plan, Robert Klugman, John Plumrose Industries LLC Ronald Altbach, Michael Ben- van Merkensteijn, Roth 401K Plan Jacob, John van Merkensteijn, Omineca Trust, and Omineca Trust, RAK Investment RAK Investment Trust Trust, and Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv-01809-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Case Name & Number Defendants Included Defendants Excluded in Trial Proposal from Trial Proposal 34 Skatteforvaltningen v. Raubritter Richard Markowitz Seth Whitaker (as Personal LLC Pension Plan, Adam LaRosa and John van Representative of the (previously voluntarily dismissed), Merkensteijn Estate of Alexander C. Richard Markowitz, John van Burns) and Raubritter LLC Merkensteijn, and Seth Whitaker Pension Plan (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Alexander C. Burns), Case No. 18-cv-04833-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 35 Skatteforvaltningen v. Remece Richard Markowitz, Investments LLC Pension Plan, John van John van Merkensteijn, and Merkensteijn, and Richard Markowitz, Case No. 19- Remece Investments cv-01911-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) LLC Pension Plan 36 Skatteforvaltningen v. RJM Richard Markowitz Capital Pension Plan and Richard and RJM Capital Markowitz, Case No. 19-cv- Pension Plan 01898-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 37 Skatteforvaltningen v. Roadcraft Michael Ben-Jacob, Ronald Altbach and Technologies LLC Roth 401(K) Robert Klugman, Roadcraft Technologies Plan, Ronald Altbach, Michael Richard Markowitz, LLC Roth 401(K) Plan Ben-Jacob, RAK Investment Trust, RAK Investment Richard Markowitz, Robert Trust, and Routt Klugman, and Routt Capital Trust, Capital Trust Case No. 19-cv-01812-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 38 Skatteforvaltningen v. Routt Michael Ben-Jacob, Capital Pension Plan, Richard Richard Markowitz, Markowitz, and Michael Ben- and Routt Capital Jacob, Case No. 19-cv-01896- Pension Plan LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 39 Skatteforvaltningen v. Starfish Michael Ben-Jacob, Capital Management LLC Roth John van 401(K) Plan, John van Merkensteijn, and Merkensteijn, and Michael Ben- Starfish Capital Jacob, Case No. 19-cv-01871- Management LLC LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Roth 401(K) Plan 40 Skatteforvaltningen v. Sternway Michael Ben-Jacob, Robin Jones and Sternway Logistics LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Robert Klugman, John Logistics LLC Roth Robin Jones, Michael Ben-Jacob, van Merkensteijn, 401(K) Plan John van Merkensteijn, Omineca Omineca Trust, and Trust, RAK Investment Trust, and RAK Investment Trust Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv- 01813-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Case Name & Number Defendants Included Defendants Excluded in Trial Proposal from Trial Proposal 41 Skatteforvaltningen v. Tarvos John van Merkensteijn Pension Plan and John van and Tarvos Pension Merkensteijn, Case No. 19-cv- Plan 01930-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 42 Skatteforvaltningen v. Random Michael Ben-Jacob, Holdings 401K Plan, Robert Robert Klugman, and Klugman, and Michael Ben-Jacob, Random Holdings Case No. 18-cv-07829-LAK 401K Plan (S.D.N.Y.) 43 Skatteforvaltningen v. The Stor Michael Ben-Jacob, Capital Consulting LLC 401K Robert Klugman, and Plan, Michael Ben-Jacob, and The Stor Capital Robert Klugman, Case No. 18-cv- Consulting LLC 401K 04434-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Plan 44 Skatteforvaltningen v. Trailing Michael Ben-Jacob, Perry Lerner and Trailing Edge Productions LLC Roth Robert Klugman, Edge Productions LLC 401(K) Plan, Perry Lerner, Richard Markowitz, Roth 401(K) Plan Michael Ben-Jacob, RAK RAK Investment Investment Trust, Richard Trust, and Routt Markowitz, Robert Klugman, and Capital Trust Routt Capital Trust, Case No. 19- cv-01815-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 45 Skatteforvaltningen v. True Wind Michael Ben-Jacob, Ronald Altbach and True Investments LLC Roth 401(K) Robert Klugman, John Wind Investments LLC Plan, Ronald Altbach, Michael van Merkensteijn, Roth 401(K) Plan Ben-Jacob, John van Omineca Trust, and Merkensteijn, Omineca Trust, RAK Investment Trust RAK Investment Trust, and Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv-01818- LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 46 Skatteforvaltningen v. Tumba Michael Ben-Jacob, Edwin Miller and Tumba Systems LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, Robert Klugman, John Systems LLC Roth 401(K) Edwin Miller, Michael Ben-Jacob, van Merkensteijn, Plan John van Merkensteijn, Omineca Omineca Trust, and Trust, RAK Investment Trust, and RAK Investment Trust Robert Klugman, Case No. 19-cv- 01931-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 47 Skatteforvaltningen v. Vanderlee Michael Ben-Jacob, David Zelman, Vanderlee Technologies Pension Plan, David Robert Klugman, John Technologies Pension Zelman, Michael Ben-Jacob, John van Merkensteijn, Plan, and Vanderlee van Merkensteijn, Omineca Trust, Omineca Trust, and Technologies Pension Plan RAK Investment Trust, Robert RAK Investment Trust Trust Klugman, and Vanderlee Technologies Pension Plan Trust, Case No. 19-cv-01918-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Case Name & Number Defendants Included Defendants Excluded in Trial Proposal from Trial Proposal 48 Skatteforvaltningen v. Voojo Michael Ben-Jacob, Productions LLC Roth 401(K) John van Plan, John van Merkensteijn, and Merkensteijn, and Michael Ben-Jacob, Case No. 19- Voojo Productions cv-01873-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) LLC Roth 401(K) Plan 49 Skatteforvaltningen v. Xiphias Richard Markowitz, LLC Pension Plan, John van John van Merkensteijn, and Richard Merkensteijn, and Markowitz, Case No. 19-cv- Xiphias LLC Pension 01924-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Plan 50 Skatteforvaltningen v. John van Richard Markowitz, 2321Capital Pension Plan, Merkensteijn, Richard Markowitz, John van Bowline Management Bernina Pension Plan Trust, RJM Merkensteijn, Bernina Pension Plan, Clove Capital Pension Plan Trust, Pension Plan Trust, Pension Plan, Davin 2321Capital Pension Plan, and RJM Capital Investments Pension Plan, Bowline Management Pension Pension Plan Trust Delvian LLC Pension Plan, Plan, California Catalog DFL Investments Pension Company Pension Plan Plan, Laegeler Asset (previously voluntarily dismissed), Management Pension Plan, Clove Pension Plan, Davin Lion Advisory Inc. Pension Investments Pension Plan, Delvian Plan, Mill River Capital LLC Pension Plan, DFL Management Pension Plan, Investments Pension Plan, Next Level Pension Plan, Laegeler Asset Management Rajan Investments LLC Pension Plan, Lion Advisory Inc. Pension Plan, Spirit on the Pension Plan, Mill River Capital Water Pension Plan, and Management Pension Plan, Next Traden Investments Level Pension Plan, Rajan Pension Plan Investments LLC Pension Plan, Spirit on the Water Pension Plan, and Traden Investments Pension Plan, Case No. 19-cv-10713-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) 51 Skatteforvaltningen v. Michael Michael Ben-Jacob Ben-Jacob, Case No. 21-cv- 05339-LAK (S.D.N.Y.)