The Estate of Michael Heiser v. Clearstream Banking, S.A.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 10, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-11114·Unknown

Opinion

messes DLA Piper Lip (u3} □ 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, New York 10020-1104 www. dlapiper.cor DLA PIPER Robert C. Santoro robert. santore@dlapiper.com T 212.335.4557 F 917.778.8557

January 27, 2020 sere pe OS TE RA Via EGF | USDC SUNY re hl The Honorable Lorna G. Schofield Lpocunint 7 FILED United States District Judge ep ECcraas MALE it Thurgood Marshall We gh □ United States Courthouse (DOC Fe SO i 40 Foley Square {DATE PE ESAT oan amet New York, NY 10007 ‘beeen: ae Re: &state of Michael Heiser, et al. v. Clearstream Banking, S.A., Case No, 19-cv-11114 Letter Seeking Stay of Case Dear Judge Schofield:

This office is counsel to the Estate of Michael Heiser, ef a/, the Petitioners in the above- referenced action (the “Petitioners”). | am writing on behalf of the Petitioners and the respondent Clearstream Banking, S.A. ("Clearstream’).! There are currently three other cases pending before Judge Preska which are related judgment enforcement proceedings filed by judgment creditors of the Islamic Republic of Iran ("Iran"): Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., No. 13 Civ. 9195 (LAP) (‘Peterson If), Levin et al. v. Clearstream Banking S.A. et al, Case No. 1:18-cv-12217 (LAP) ("Levin"), and Haviish et al. v. Clearstream Banking S.A. et al., No. 16-cv-8075 (LAP) (“Haviish’). All of these cases, including the above-captioned case, seek to execute on the same assets based on similar legal theories. The Petitioners are simultaneously filing a Related Case Statement with respect to Levin, Peterson □□□ and Haviish and believe that the present matter should be transferred to Judge Preska pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules for the Division of Business among District Judges.

The cidest of these three cases is Peterson i/. Clearstream, Bank Markazi, and Banca UBAE, S.p.A. filed petitions for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in Peterson ff. See Peterson v. Islamic Republic of fran, 876 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2017). On March 1, 2018, the Second Circuit stayed the issuance of the mandate in Peterson i/ pending the resolution of these petitions for certiorari. On January 13, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a summary disposition granting the parties’ petitions for certiorari, vacating the 1 By joining in this letter, Clearstream does not waive and expressly preserves all defenses to the claims asserted, including without limitation defenses based upon lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue.

EASTVI71641766,2

January 27, 2020 Page Two

Second Circuit’s judgment, and remanding the case to the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Pub. L. No. 416-___ (5. 1790), which contains provisions concerning the assets identified in Peterson I.

The Haviish and Levin actions have been stayed since their inception in light of the various appellate proceedings in Peterson Ii, The outcome of the ongoing appellate proceedings in Peterson □□ is likely to bear significantly on the conduct of the present matter. For this reason, the parties believe that the present action should be stayed pending resolution of the Peterson // appeal. \ Petitioners have requested, and Clearstream has agreed, to waive service of the summons. | Accordingly, in the absence of the requested stay, the parties agree that Clearstream wili have 90 days from today te answer or file a motion under Rule 12. In waiving service, Clearstream retains and | preserves all other defenses and objections to the lawsuit, including but not limited to lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. □ | This office remains available to answer any questions the Court may have.

Respectfully, “30 ORDERED Py yg fin _ hugh ff fo ff fa fo CMA C4. /ipulle fb COSTA A. PRESEA oo Robert C, Santoro UbLTHD STATES DISTRICT JUDGE fie [20 cc: Benjamin S. Kaminetzky (ben. kaminetzky@davispolk.cam} Gerard McCarthy (gerard. mecarthy@davispolk.com)

EAST\1#71641765.2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Estate of Michael Heiser v. Clearstream Banking, S.A., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

The Estate of Michael Heiser v. Clearstream Banking, S.A. (The Estate of Michael Heiser v. Clearstream Banking, S.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran
876 F.3d 63 (Second Circuit, 2017)