# Securities and Exchange Commission v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC

> District Court, E.D. New York · April 8, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10841409

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** April 8, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10841409

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the timing factor weighed against lifting the litigation injunction where receiver had “only just begun to investigate the full extent of the fraudulent scheme”
- explaining that the “SEC’s judgment [of a proposed distribution plan] is entitled to deference from th[e] [c]ourt” and that the court “may give weight to the [r]eceiver’s judgment” of the plan

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
v. 21-CV-583 (MKB)

GPB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC; ASCENDANT
CAPITAL, LLC; ASCENDANT ALTERNATIVE
STRATEGIES, LLC; DAVID GENTILE; JEFFRY
SCHNEIDER; and JEFFREY LASH,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) commenced the above-
captioned action on February 4, 2021, against Defendants GPB Capital Holdings, LLC (“GPB”),
Ascendant Capital, LLC (“Ascendant Capital”), Ascendant Alternative Strategies, LLC
(“Ascendant Strategies”), David Gentile, Jeffry Schneider, and Jeffrey Lash.1 (See Compl.,
Docket Entry No. 1.)

1 The SEC alleged claims (1) against GPB, Ascendant Capital, Ascendant Strategies,
Gentile, and Schneider for violations of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a); (2) against
Gentile, Schneider, and Lash for aiding and abetting violations of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 77q(a) as controlling persons pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77o(b); (3) against GPB, Ascendant
Capital, Ascendant Strategies, Gentile, and Schneider for violations of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; (4) against Gentile, Schneider, and Lash for aiding
and abetting violations of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 78t(e); (5) against GPB and Gentile for violations of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1)
and 80b-6(2); (6) against Gentile for aiding and abetting violations of the Advisers Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2) pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d) and 80b-9(f); and (7) against
GPB for violations of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(4) and 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2, 15
U.S.C. § 80b-6(4) and 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-7, 15 U.S.C. § 781(g), and 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6 and
17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-17(a). (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) The SEC alleged that Defendants
perpetrated a fraudulent scheme in which they used investor funds to satisfy an 8% annualized
On February 12, 2021, the Court appointed a monitor, Joseph T. Gardemal III (the
“Monitor” or the “Receiver”), to oversee GPB. (Order Appointing Monitor (the “Monitorship
Order”), Docket Entry No. 23.) On April 14, 2021, on consent of the SEC and GPB, the Court
amended the Order (the “Amended Monitorship Order”). (Am. Monitorship Order, Docket
Entry No. 39.) On December 7, 2023, the Court entered an order converting the monitorship to a

receivership and imposing a litigation injunction, (Order Adopting Report and Recommendations
Imposing Receivership (“Receivership Order”), Docket Entry No. 186). Sec. & Exch. Comm’n
v. GPB Cap. Holdings, LLC, No. 21-CV-583, 2023 WL 8468467 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2023). On
December 3, 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the Court’s order converting the monitorship
over GPB into a receivership and imposing a litigation injunction. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. GPB
Cap. Holdings, LLC, No. 23-8010, 2024 WL 4945247 (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2024), aff’g 2023 WL
8468467.
On January 17, 2025, the Receiver filed a motion seeking approval of a plan of
distribution (the “Distribution Plan”) to return funds to GPB investors. Schneider, Gentile,

Ascendant Capital, and Ascendant Strategies objected to the Plan, along with non-parties DJ
Partners, LLC (“DJ Partners”), Axiom Capital Management Inc. (“Axiom”), B9 Hyatt Ave
Owner Urban Renewal, LLC (formerly known as B9 Hyatt Ave Owner LLC) (“B9”), and Osaic
Wealth, Inc. (“Osaic”) (collectively, the “Objectors”), objected to the Receiver’s Distribution
Plan.2

distribution to investors, while representing to the investors that the distributions represented
profits from the companies GPB invested in; failed to deliver audited financial statements; failed
to register two funds with the SEC; impeded former employees from communicating with the
SEC; and retaliated against a whistleblower. (See id. ¶¶ 1–7.)

2 (Receiver’s Mot. for Distrib. of Funds (“Receiver’s Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 228;
Receiver’s Proposed Plan of Distribution (the “Distribution Plan”), annexed to Receiver’s Mot.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court: (1) grants the Receiver’s motion for
disbursement of funds; (2) finds Osaic’s objections to be moot; (3) denies B9’s motion to
intervene, request for clarification, and motion for relief from the litigation injunction; (4) denies
Axiom’s motion to intervene and motion for relief from the litigation injunction, and finds
Axiom’s objections are without merit; (5) finds Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital’s

objections to be without merit; and (6) denies DJ Partners’ motion to intervene and finds
Ascendant Strategies and DJ Partners’ objections are without merit.
I. Background
a. Factual background
GPB is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in New
York, New York, which holds approximately $238,637,198 in assets under management.
(Compl. ¶ 21.) Ascendant Strategies is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal
place of business in New York, New York, and since March of 2017, sells interests in GPB
Capital limited partnership funds that have been sourced through Ascendant Strategies. (Id.
¶ 23.) Ascendant Capital is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of

business in West Lake Hills, Texas, and serves as the placement agent for GPB. (Id. ¶ 22.)

as Ex. A, Docket Entry No. 228-1; Decl. of Receiver in Supp. of Receiver’s Mot. (“Receiver’s
Decl.”), Docket Entry No. 229; Osaic’s Objs. to Receiver’s Mot. (“Osaic’s Objs.”), Docket Entry
No. 243; B9’s Mot. to Intervene (“B9’s Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 244; B9’s Mem. in Supp. of
B9’s Mot. (“B9’s Mem.”), Docket Entry No. 244-8; Receiver’s Opp’n to B9’s Mot. (“Receiver’s
Opp’n”), Docket Entry No. 267; B9’s Reply in Supp. of B9’s Mot. (“B9’s Reply”), Docket Entry
No. 269; Axiom's Mot. to Intervene (“Axiom’s Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 247; Axiom’s Mem. in
Supp. of Axiom’s Mot. (“Axiom’s Mem.”), Docket Entry No. 247-1; Gentile, Schneider &
Ascendant Capital’s Objs. to Receiver’s Mot. (“Defs.’ Objs.”), Docket Entry No. 248; DJ
Partners’ Mot. to Intervene (“DJ Partners’ Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 249; Ascendant Strategies
& DJ Partners’ Objs. to Receiver’s Mot. (“Ascendant Strategies & DJ Partners’ Objs.”), Docket
Entry No 250; Receiver’s Reply in Supp. of Receiver’s Mot. (“Receiver’s Reply”), Docket Entry
No. 258; Decl. of Receiver in Further Supp. of Receiver’s Mot. (“Receiver’s Add’l Decl.”),
Docket Entry No. 259; Axiom’s Reply in Supp. of Axiom’s Mem. (“Axiom’s Reply”), Docket
Entry No. 264.)
Ascendant Capital is a branch office of Ascendant Strategies. (Id. ¶ 23.) Gentile and
Schneider’s ownership interests in Ascendant Strategies flow through non-party objector and
proposed intervenor DJ Partners, a management consulting business co-owned by Gentile and
Schneider.3 (Receiver’s Reply 6.) Gentile is the founder, owner, and former CEO of GPB.4
(Compl. ¶ 24.) Schneider is a minority owner of Ascendant Strategies and the sole owner and

CEO of Ascendant Capital. (Id. ¶ 25.) Lash served as managing partner of GPB from 2013 to
early 2018 and was responsible for formulating GPB’s automotive retail strategy. (Id. ¶ 26.)
Non-party objector and proposed intervenor Axiom is a New York-based company “that
provides asset management, investment banking, capital markets, and research services to its
customers.” (Eric Miller Aff. in Supp. of Axiom’s Mot. (“Miller Aff.”) ¶¶ 12–13, Docket Entry
No. 247-2.) Schneider worked with Axiom as an independent contractor from May of 2013 to
April of 2017, and also “ran Ascendant Capital as an independent branch office” during that
time.5 (Id. ¶¶ 17–18.) Non-party objector and proposed intervenor B9 purchased real property

3 DJ Partners does not explain its relationship to Gentile, Schneider, or any of the parties
to this action. The Court accordingly accepts Receiver’s description of DJ Partners as true for
the purposes of this Memorandum and Order.

4 On February 5, 2021, Gentile resigned as CEO and sole manager of GPB and appointed
Rob Chmiel as interim CEO and sole manager. (Decl. of Monitor in Supp. of SEC’s Mot.
(“Monitor Decl.”) ¶ 10, Docket Entry No. 90.) On July 1, 2021, GPB officially named Chmiel
as CEO. (Id.)

5 The Receiver characterizes Axiom as a “New York broker-dealer named as a defendant
in multiple actions arising from substantially similar facts.” (Receiver’s Reply 5.) He alleges
that Ascendant Strategies began as a “branch office of Axiom, where Schneider worked as a
registered broker-dealer representative.” (Id.) He further notes that “Axiom allegedly worked
hand-in-hand with Ascendant [Strategies] in structuring, overseeing, and selling GPB Capital
investments to Investors” and cites two ongoing cases alleging that “fees and commissions paid
by Investors, which ultimately made their away to Schneider, Gentile, and others, flowed — at
least in part — to Axiom.” (Id.) Axiom disputes the Receiver’s characterization and asserts that
Ascendant Strategies “was an independent branch office” and that the two were “separate
companies with separate offices, ownership, and operations.” (Axiom’s Reply 6, 7.) Axiom also
in Newark, New Jersey from MTF Realty, LLC (“MTF Realty”) and GPB Cold Storage
Holdings II, LLC (“Cold Storage II”).6 (B9’s Mem. 1.) Non-party objector Osaic owns the five
broker-dealers that “were involved with the distribution of” shares of several Receivership
Entities. (Osaic’s Objs. 5.)
The SEC alleged in the Complaint that between April of 2014 and December of 2018,

GPB served as the general partner and/or fund manager in five limited partnership funds:
Automotive Portfolio, Holdings I, Holdings II, Waste Management, and Cold Storage.7 (Compl.

notes that it has filed motions to dismiss in “several” of the matters in which it is a defendant,
and that those motions are stayed. (Id. at 6.) For the purposes of this Memorandum and Order,
the Court need not resolve the extent of Schneider’s involvement in Axiom, and notes only that
the parties agree that Schneider had a near-simultaneous professional relationship with Axiom,
Ascendant Capital, and Ascendant Strategies.

6 On December 5, 2023, B9 sued MTF Realty and Cold Storage II in New York Supreme
Court alleging breach of contract of the sale of the New Jersey property (the “New York State
Action”). (B9’s Mem. 5; see also Decl. of Nicholas W. Laird (“Laird Decl.”) in Supp. of B9’s
Mot., Docket Entry No. 244-2; New York State Action Am. Compl., annexed to B9’s Mot. as
Ex. A, Docket Entry No. 244-3.) In particular, B9 seeks to resolve the parties’ claims to $3.5
million of the sale proceeds that MTF Realty and Cold Storage II transferred to escrow as
security for two significant outstanding issues at the New Jersey property. (B9’s Mem. 1.) B9
argues that the “agreed-upon conditions for release of the [e]scrow [a]mount to B9 came to pass,
but [MTF Realty and Cold Storage II] opposed and prevented that release.” (Id.) On January 8,
2025, MTF Realty and Cold Storage II notified the New York Supreme Court of the Court’s
Receivership Order and asked the court to “effectuate a stay” of the New York State Action
because MTF Realty and Cold Storage II “are assets held under the entities covered by the
Receivership Order, specifically GPB Cold Storage LP.” (Notice of Receivership and Litigation
Injunction, annexed to B9’s Mot as Ex. D 2, Docket Entry No. 244-6.) On January 31, 2025,
Justice Margaret Chan stayed the New York State Action “for the limited purpose of permitting
[B9] to apply for a ruling . . . regarding whether the [Receivership] Order precludes [the New
York State Action] from proceeding while the litigation injunction . . . is in effect.” (Stip. and
Am. Order, annexed to B9’s Mot as Ex. E 2, Docket Entry No. 244-7).

7 The Distribution Plan indicates that GPB was the general partner or controlling entity
of nine pooled investment vehicles: (1) GPB Capital Holdings, LLC (“GPB Capital”); (2) GPB
Holdings, LP (“Holdings”); (3) Holdings II, LP (“Holdings II”); (4) GPB Holdings III, LP
(“Holdings III”); (5) APLP; (6) Armada Waste Management (formerly known as GPB Waste
Management), LP (“Waste”); (7) Cold Storage; (8) GPB NYC Development, LP (“NYCD”); and
¶ 29.) GPB marketed its investments exclusively through Ascendant Capital, and Ascendant
Strategies promoted the investments to dozens of broker-dealers nationwide. (Id. ¶ 31.)
Investors in the Funds paid significant fees and expenses, including $79 million in management
fees to GPB, $26 million in acquisition fees to Ascendant Strategies and another broker-dealer,
and $187 million in “selling fees” to Ascendant Capital and other broker-dealers. (Id. ¶ 33.) To

attract investors, GPB promised an 8% per annum distribution as well as additional “special
distributions.” (Id. ¶¶ 34–35.) GPB represented that the source of the distributions would be
profits from operations of the Funds’ portfolio companies. (Id. ¶ 36.) Starting “as early as
August 2015,” instead of paying distributions based on operations of the portfolio companies,
GPB used investor funds to cover the shortfall between the profits from operations of the Funds’
portfolio companies and the amounts needed for the distribution payments. (Id. ¶¶ 41–42.) The
Individual Defendants8 “manipulated certain of the Funds’ financial statements to give the false

(9) GPB Automotive Income Fund, Ltd. (“AIF”). (Receiver’s Mot. 4.) The Court accordingly
uses the term “Funds” in reference to all nine entities.

8 On February 4, 2021, Gentile, Schneider, and Lash were publicly charged in a criminal
action in the Eastern District of New York (the “Criminal Action”). See Indictment, United
States v. Gentile, No. 21-CR-54 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2021). The indictment alleges, among other
things, that Gentile, Schneider, and Lash “together with others, engaged in a scheme to defraud
investors and prospective investors” relating to GPB and its Funds. See id. On July 26, 2023,
Lash pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud. See Order Accepting Guilty Plea, United States
v. Gentile, No. 21-CR-54 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2023). Gentile and Schneider proceeded to trial
and on June 12, 2024, a jury found them both guilty on all counts. See Minute Entry and Order,
United States v. Gentile, No. 21-CR-54 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2024); Minute Entry and Order,
United States v. Gentile, No. 21-CR-54 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2024). On March 11, 2025, Judge
Rachel P. Kovner denied Gentile’s and Schneider ’s post-trial motions for acquittal and a new
trial, as well as Gentile’s motion to dismiss the indictment. See Memorandum and Order, United
States v. Gentile, No. 21-CR-54 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025); Schneider Motion for Acquittal and
for New Trial, United States v. Gentile, No. 21-CR-54 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2024); Gentile
Motion for Acquittal, United States v. Gentile, No. 21-CR-54 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2024); Gentile
Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, United States v. Gentile, No. 21-CR-54, (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13,
2024); Gentile Motion for New Trial, United States v. Gentile, No. 21-CR-54 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.
13, 2024). All three Defendants are awaiting sentencing.
appearance that the income [was being] earned by the Funds” rather than inform investors that
the Funds were not performing as projected. (Id. ¶ 49.) In addition, Gentile and Schneider
engaged in conflicted transactions, including overpaying for acquisitions to inflate their own
acquisition fees and otherwise inflating their own compensation without disclosing these
conflicted transactions to investors. (Id. ¶¶ 71–73, 74.) In addition, the SEC alleged that GPB

failed to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements, including by failing to deliver
audited financial statements, (id. ¶¶ 77–81), failing to register certain of its Funds, (id. ¶¶ 82–83),
requiring employees to sign termination agreements that restricted their ability to report
misconduct at GPB, (id. ¶¶ 84–91), and retaliating against whistleblowers, (id. ¶¶ 92–111).
b. Procedural background
On February 12, 2021, the Court appointed the Monitor to oversee GPB, and on April 14,
2021, amended the Monitorship Order. (Monitorship Order; Am. Monitorship Order.) On May
31, 2022, Gentile moved for relief from the Amended Monitorship Order, arguing that the
Monitor had completed his work and therefore the scope of his duties should be narrowed.9 (See
Gentile’s Relief Mem. 6, 25.) In support of his motion, Gentile argued that GPB, its interim

management, and the Monitor had “steadfastly blocked” his repeated efforts to assist the
company and benefit its investors. (Id. at 16.) He argued that he saw “no other option . . . [than]
to appoint new managers” in order to “carry out GPB’s business plan, instead of merely
liquidating assets.” (Id. at 24.)
On June 13, 2022, the SEC moved for an order to show cause why the monitorship

9 (Gentile’s Not. of Mot. for Relief (“Gentile’s Relief Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 79;
Gentile’s Mem. in Supp. of Gentile’s Relief Mot. (“Gentile’s Relief Mem.”), Docket Entry No.
80.)
should not be converted into a receivership.10 (SEC’s Mot.) The SEC alleged that on or about
May 27, 2022, Gentile advised GPB’s CEO and sole manager, Rob Chmiel, that he had
appointed three new managers. (SEC’s Mem. 5.) Gentile directed GPB’s CEO to cooperate
with his newly-installed managers and “seek consensus” with them regarding GPB’s future
course. (Id.) In addition, the SEC alleged that Gentile and the new managers modified GPB’s

Operating Agreement11 so that it provided (1) Gentile and the new managers expanded
information rights; (2) compensation packages for the new managers of up to $400,000 per year;
(3) Gentile with the ability to unilaterally amend the Operating Agreement; (4) mandatory tax
distributions to Gentile; (5) exclusive jurisdiction to the Delaware Chancery Court for all actions
related to the Operating Agreement; and (6) advancement of expenses. (Id.; see also Monitor
Decl. ¶ 21.) The SEC argued that Gentile’s “distortion of the factual record” in an effort to gain
control of GPB “require[d] that a receiver be appointed to take exclusive managerial control over
[GPB] and the GPB Funds . . . for the benefit of investors.” (SEC’s Mem. 7.) The SEC also
argued that Gentile’s actions constituted a breach of the Amended Monitorship Order and a

separate basis for converting the monitorship to a receivership. (See id. at 5 n.6; SEC’s June 2,
2022 Letter 1–2, Docket Entry No. 85.)
By report and recommendation dated July 28, 2023, Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon
recommended that the Court (1) grant the SEC’s application to convert the monitorship into a
receivership and impose a litigation injunction and (2) deny Gentile’s motion as moot (the

10 (SEC’s Mot. for an Order to Show Cause (“SEC’s Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 88;
SEC’s Mem. in Supp. of SEC’s Mot. (“SEC’s Mem.”), Docket Entry No. 89; Gentile’s Mem. in
Opp’n to SEC’s Mot. (“Gentile’s Opp’n”), Docket Entry No. 102; SEC’s Reply in Supp. of
SEC’s Mot. (“SEC’s Reply”), Docket Entry No. 103.)

11 (Limited Liability Company Agreement of GPB Capital Holdings, LLC (“Operating
Agreement”), annexed to the Decl. of David Gentile as Ex. A, Docket Entry No. 82-1.)
“R&R”).12 (R&R 33, Docket Entry No. 157.) Judge Scanlon explained that Gentile had caused
GPB to breach the Amended Monitorship Order by (1) appointing three new GPB managers and
expanding the number of managers from one to four; (2) amending GPB’s Operating Agreement
to provide additional compensation for non-employee managers; and (3) failing to cure his
actions after the SEC notified him that he had violated the terms of the Amended Monitorship

Order. (Id. at 13–14.) She further noted that, as a result of Gentile’s actions, “GPB is in the
precarious position of operating with three new ‘purported’ managers and a ‘purportedly’
amended [Operating] Agreement, both of which may actively undermine” GPB’s efforts to
“address the state in which Mr. Gentile left it and move forward in a manner that is productive to
its investors.” (Id. at 26.) Judge Scanlon concluded that “[t]he uncertainty of GPB’s position is
creating significant consequences, which are damaging its financial health and, by extension, the
finances of its investors” and therefore recommended that the Court convert the monitorship into
a receivership. (Id. at 26–27, 33.) On December 7, 2023, the Court adopted the R&R, the
Amended Proposed Receivership Order, and denied Gentile’s motion for relief from the

12 The SEC filed a proposed order that detailed its proposed terms of the receivership
(the “Proposed Receivership Order”). (Proposed Receivership Order, annexed to the Decl. of
Neal Jacobson as Ex. 1, Docket Entry No. 91-1.) On August 2, 2023, the SEC filed an amended
proposed order in response to Judge Scanlon’s order directing the SEC to submit a revised order
with minor revisions and clarifications (the “Amended Proposed Receivership Order”). (Am.
Proposed Order, annexed to the SEC’s Aug. 2, 2023 Letter, Docket Entry No. 161-2.) On
September 8, 2023, Schneider and Ascendant Capital filed an objection to the R&R, and Gentile
filed a separate objection. (See Schneider & Ascendant Capital’s Objs. to the R&R
(“Schneider’s Objs.”), Docket Entry No. 167; Gentile’s Objs. to the R&R (“Gentile’s Objs.”),
Docket Entry No. 168.) On September 22, 2023, the SEC and GPB filed responses urging the
Court to adopt the R&R. (See SEC’s Resp. to Defs.’ Objs. (“SEC’s Resp.”) 18, Docket Entry
No. 170; GPB’s Resp. to Defs.’ Objs. (“GPB’s Resp.”) 23, Docket Entry No. 171.) On
September 29, 2023, Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital filed replies. (See Gentile’s
Reply in Supp. of Objs. to the R&R (“Gentile’s Reply”), Docket Entry No. 175; Schneider &
Ascendant Capital’s Reply in Supp. of Objs. to the R&R (“Schneider’s Reply”), Docket Entry
No. 176.)
Amended Monitorship Order. 13 (Receivership Order); GPB Cap. Holdings, LLC, 2023 WL
8468467.
On December 12, 2023, Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital filed an order
requesting the Court direct Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not stay the
Receivership Order pending resolution of their appeal. (Defs.’ Mot. for an Order to Show Cause,

Docket Entry No. 189.) On December 14, 2023, the Court denied the motion, but “grant[ed] a
temporary stay so that the parties may seek a stay pending appeal from the Second Circuit.”
(Order dated Dec. 14, 2023.) On December 21, 2023, Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital
filed a motion to stay pending their appeal of the Court’s Receivership Order, which the Second
Circuit granted. See Motion to Stay, Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. GPB Cap. Holdings, LLC, No. 23-
8010 (2d Cir. Dec. 21, 2023); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. GPB Cap. Holdings, LLC, No. 23-8010
(2d Cir. May 14, 2024) (order granting motion to stay).

13 In imposing a litigation injunction, the Court exempted “reimbursement procedures
pursuant to which Schneider and Gentile submit invoices and requests for reimbursement under
their advance orders.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. GPB Cap. Holdings, LLC, No. 21-CV-583, 2023
WL 8468467, at *16 n.21 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2023).
On November 9, 2021, Schneider filed an action in Delaware Chancery Court against
GPB and related entities, seeking advancement of legal expenses for the various actions pending
against himself, including the criminal prosecution in the Eastern District of New York (the
“Delaware Action”). (See Schneider’s Objs. 4.) The Delaware Action resulted in an order
granting summary judgment, (see Final Order Granting Summ. J., annexed to Decl. of Glenn C.
Colton (“Colton Decl.”) as Ex. A, Docket Entry No. 167-2), and two orders regarding
advancement, one of which sets forth specific procedures for the evaluation and then
advancement of attorneys’ fees and other expenses (the “Fitracks Order”). (See Schneider’s
Objs. 4; Fitracks Order, annexed to the Colton Decl. as Ex. B, Docket Entry No. 167-3; Judicial
Action Form, annexed to the Colton Decl. as Ex. C, Docket Entry No. 167-4.) On December 20,
2021, Gentile filed a similar action in Delaware Chancery Court, which granted a similar
advancement order. (See Stipulation and Advancement Order, annexed to the Decl. of Jonathan
R. Jeremias (“Jeremias Decl.”) as Ex. 10, Docket Entry No. 168-11.). In adopting the R&R, the
Court clarified that “the reimbursement procedures set forth in the Fitracks Order and the
Stipulation and Advancement Order are exempted from the litigation injunction.” GPB Cap.
Holdings, LLC, 2023 WL 8468467, at *16 n.21.
After hearing oral argument on Defendants’ motion on November 6, 2024, Oral
Argument, Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. GPB Cap. Holdings, LLC, No. 23-8010 (2d Cir. Nov. 6,
2024), on December 3, 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the Court’s Receivership Order and
lifted the stay, Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. GPB Cap. Holdings, LLC, No. 23-8010, 2024 WL
4945247, at *6 (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2024) (summary order). The Second Circuit explained that the

Court’s decision to convert the monitorship into a receivership was “well-supported by the
record” based on Gentile’s uncured violations of the Amended Monitorship Order, including
“the imminent risk of dissipation of assets.” Id. at *5. As the Second Circuit noted, the
Amended Monitorship Order provided that “the relief for an uncured violation of the
monitorship ‘shall’ be a receivership.” Id. at *4. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the
Court’s decision “converting the monitorship into a receivership pursuant to the explicit terms of
the [Amended Monitorship Order] and its inherent equitable power.”14 Id. at *6.
c. The Receiver’s Distribution Plan
Pursuant to the Receivership Order,15 the Receiver’s Distribution Plan proposes the
following: (1) issuing an initial distribution of not more than $400,000,000 of Receivership

14 On January 21, 2025, Gentile petitioned for a rehearing en banc, which the Second
Circuit denied on February 26, 2025. Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v.
GPB Cap. Holdings, LLC, No. 23-8010 (2d Cir. Jan. 21, 2025); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. GPB
Cap. Holdings, LLC, No. 23-8010 (2d Cir. Feb. 26, 2025) (order denying petition for panel
rehearing).

15 The Order Appointing Receiver and Imposing Litigation Injunction directed Receiver
to:
(a) [P]reserve the status quo to enable the Receiver to perform the
duties specified hereunder; (b) ascertain the financial condition of
the Receivership Entities and Receivership Assets; (c) oversee and
manage, consistent with the relevant governing documents and
applicable law, the Receivership Entities and Receivership Assets;
(d) prevent the encumbrance or disposal of the Receivership Assets
contrary to the Receiver’s mandate; (e) preserve the books, records,
Assets16 to investors in (a) APLP; (b) Holdings II; and (c) Cold Storage on a partnership-by-
partnership basis in accordance with each Fund’s Limited Partnership Agreement (the “Initial
Distribution”);17 (2) maintaining $719,000,000 in cash reserves (the “Reserves”); (3) establishing
a claims solicitation and resolution procedure for investors and claimholders against the
Receivership (the “Claims Resolution Procedures”); and (4) issuing subsequent distributions to

the extent that funds are available for that purpose (the “Subsequent Distributions”).18
(Receiver’s Mot. 2, 16–17, 27.) The Receiver “briefed [the Distribution Plan] to the SEC and
state agencies [that] have filed similar enforcement actions against GPB.” (Id. at 2, 23.)
The Receiver plans to issue disbursements on a partnership-by-partnership basis rather
than a pooled or pro rata basis. (Id. at 4, 19; see also Receiver’s Decl. ¶¶ 12–14.) The Receiver
also declined to apply the bankruptcy doctrine of substantive consolidation, or corporate veil-
piercing, to the Distribution Plan. (Receiver’s Mot. 20.) First, the Receiver concluded after a

and documents of the Receivership Entities and Receivership
Assets; (f) manage litigation by and against the Receivership, the
Receivership Entities and the Receivership Assets; (g) propose for
Court approval a fair and equitable distribution of the remaining
Receivership Assets; and (h) be available to respond to investor
inquiries, all as further set forth in this Order.
(Order Appointing Receiver and Imposing Litigation Injunction (“Order
Appointing Receiver”) 3, Docket Entry No. 187.)
16 “Receivership Assets” are the “assets of the Receivership Entities together with all
proceeds thereof . . . of whatever kind, wherever situated, or whenever obtained” as defined in
the Order Appointing Receiver. (Order Appointing Receiver 2–3.) The “Receivership Entities”
are listed in the Order Appointing Receiver. (See Receivership Entities, annexed to Order
Appointing Receiver as Schedule 1, Docket Entry No 187.)

17 Holdings, Waste, and NYCD do not have assets to make distributions as part of the
Initial Distribution. The Receiver plans to make distributions to investors in those Funds “as and
when possible, again on a [p]artnership-by-[p]artnership basis.” (Receiver’s Mot. 24; see also
Receiver’s Decl. ¶ 11.)

18 The Court provides only a summary of the Distribution Plan and additional details
relevant to the Court’s evaluation of the plan and the objections discussed in section II.b infra.
thorough review that GPB “did not commingle assets or operations, or treat the [Funds] on a
consolidated basis” and that investors “did not, and could not, view their investments as having
been made” on a consolidated basis.” (Id. at 14; see also Receiver’s Decl. ¶ 11.) “Each [Fund]
operated as its own distinct investment vehicle with unique and generally non-overlapping
investment objectives, which formed one of the main points of differentiation between and

among the [Funds.]” (Receiver’s Mot. 19.) Each Fund was “launched at a different time” and
was based on different offering materials, such that a “reasonable [i]nvestor would have
understood that an investment in one [Fund] would assume the risks, as well as the benefits,
associated only with that specific [Fund’s] investment objective.” (Id.) Second, the Receiver
explained that after “a review of historical loan transactions between” the Funds, (id. at 12), he
concluded that the loans were “consistent with the treatment of the [Funds] as distinct entities,
were used for legitimate business purposes such as to support liquidity, were not improperly used
across the [Funds], and were not co[m]mingled or otherwise improperly shared among the
[Funds],” (id. at 16.) Third, the Receiver’s review indicated that the Funds’ “general ledgers

accurately reflected the separate economic activity of each of the [Funds].” (Id.) The Receiver
thus concluded that pooling “would not be consistent with due process or individual property
rights for, nor would it be fair to” APLP, Holdings II, and Cold Storage investors, who make up
the majority of the investors in the Funds. (Id. at 20.)
The Receiver has identified a number of entities or individuals “who are convicted or
accused of various misconduct with regard to the Receivership Entities,” and who the Receiver
proposes to exclude from the distributions (the “Excluded Parties”). (Id. at 38; Receiver’s Decl.
¶ 28.) Excluded Parties seeking a distribution “must submit a Proof of Claim to the Receiver,
who will review and resolve it just as he would any other Proof of Claim.” (Receiver’s Reply 4.)
The Excluded Parties “will not receive any distributions unless and until it has been determined
by a final, non-appealable order of the Court that such Excluded Parties are entitled to such
distributions.” (Distribution Plan 40.)
i. Initial distribution
The Receiver plans to make Initial Distributions within fourteen business days of the
Court’s approval of the Distribution Plan. (Receiver’s Mot. 24; Receiver’s Decl. ¶ 16.) The

Receiver would provide investors with a Notice of Determination setting forth the amount of the
investor’s claim, or, if they are not receiving an Initial Distribution, a Notice of Determination
stating why. (Receiver’s Mot. 25.) The Receiver will have “sole discretion to determine the
timing, sequence, and size” of the Initial Distribution, and Excluded Parties will not receive an
Initial Distribution. (Id.; Receiver’s Reply 3–4.)
ii. Establishing reserves
The Receiver retains the authority to “withhold from amounts distributable to any
Claimant, and supplement from time to time, one or more Reserves . . . as the Receiver, in his
sole discretion, determines is or may be reasonably necessary” to, for example, “maintain the
Receivership Assets and value thereof during the term of the Receivership Estate,” “account for
certain unresolved contingent liabilities arising from ongoing ancillary actions,” “fund

litigation,” and “pay fees and expenses in respect of the wind-down and termination of the
Receivership Entities.” (Receiver’s Mot. 26; see also Receiver’s Decl. ¶ 27.) The Receiver
“will be required to maintain records of the Reserves, and record and treat all such Reserves as if
they were being held in segregated accounts.” (Receiver’s Mot. 27.) The Receiver “will
determine, in his sole discretion, the timing, sequence, and size of the Initial Distribution and
Subsequent Distributions. . . the amount of assets that should be held in reserve.” (Id. at 26–27.)
The Receiver seeks the Court’s approval to establish cash reserves in the amount of
$719,000,000, and to “determine, in his sole discretion, whether to reduce or eliminate fees
charged to the [Funds] for management and related services and apply any amounts that
otherwise would have been paid for such services to distributions and/or the Reserves.” (Id. at
27.)
iii. Claims resolution procedures
The Receiver requests that the Court grant the Receiver the “authority to determine the

[i]nvestors and amounts payable to each” based on the Funds’ records. (Id. at 35.) He proposes
to send Notices of Determination to all investors receiving Initial Distributions within fourteen
days of the Court’s approval of the Plan, and also plans to send the “Notice of the Claims Bar
Date and other documentation to all Claimants” by that time. (Id. at 28.) In addition, the
Receiver proposes a Claims Bar Date forty-five days after the Court approves the Plan. (Id.)
The Receiver also proposes 100 days after the Claims Bar Date as the deadline to resolve
investors’ claims, and 170 days after the Claims Bar Date as the deadline for the Receiver to file
objections to non-investor claims. (Id.) Claimants may submit their claims through Epiq
Corporate Restructuring, LLC. (Id. at 29.) The Receiver and others involved with the
administration of the Receivership are exempt from being required to submit a claim, along with

investors who do not dispute the amount of their claim as set forth in their Notice of
Determination. (Id.) Investors who do dispute the amount of their claim are required to submit a
claim through Epiq. (Id. at 30.) Claimants who do not timely file their claims by the Claims Bar
Date are barred from doing so. (Id. at 32.) Claimants who dispute the amount or status of their
claim may submit a detailed record of their claim to the Receiver, who will review the
Claimants’ records and the Funds and issue a decision about the claim. (Id. at 32–33.) The
Receiver may bring any unresolved claims to the Court for further review. (Id. at 33.)
The Receiver argues that the Claims Bar Date and the proposed resolution procedures,
including the notice procedures, “will assist the Receiver and the Court in identifying and
assessing the nature of the potential Claims against, and liabilities of, the Receivership Estate.”
(Id. at 37.)
iv. Subsequent Distributions
The Receiver also seeks approval to make Subsequent Distributions without Court
approval from the Receivership Assets, including but not limited to, (1) “cash on hand”; (2)

“proceeds from the sale of assets of the Receivership Entities”; and (3) “materialization of
Causes of Action, when available Receivership Assets are deemed sufficient by the Receiver
after taking necessary reserves into consideration.” (Id. at 25; Receiver’s Decl. ¶ 18.) The
Receiver will have “sole discretion to determine the timing, sequence, and size” of Subsequent
Distributions, and Excluded Parties will not receive Subsequent Distributions unless the Court
orders otherwise. (Receiver’s Mot. 26.)
v. Receivership litigation
The Receiver will identify and pursue litigation against the Receivership Entities in
accordance with his business judgment. (Id. at 40; Receiver’s Decl. ¶ 32.) The Receiver plans to
distribute proceeds from litigation based on harm to all Receivership entities to Holdings,
Holdings II, APLP, Waste, Cold Storage, and NYCD pro rata, and proceeds from litigation

based on harm to a specific Fund only to investors of that Fund. (Receiver’s Mot. 41–43;
Receiver’s Decl. ¶ 33.) Pursuant to the Order Appointing Receiver, the Receiver has the “sole
authority, and is empowered, to enforce, waive, assign, or release any or all Privileges in the
exercise of his duties as the Receiver,” including “any and all attorney-client privilege, work
product protection, common interest or join defense privilege, or other privilege or immunity . . .
of the Receivership Entities, the Monitor, [and] the Monitorship.” (Id. at 43–44; Order
Appointing Receiver 3–9.)
II. Discussion
The Court first addresses Axiom’s, B9’s, and DJ Partners’ motions to intervene. The
Court then considers whether the Distribution Plan is fair and reasonable, and concludes by
addressing each of the objections to the Distribution Plan.
a. The Court denies Axiom’s, B9’s, and DJ Partners’ Motions to Intervene

Axiom seeks to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to challenge its designation as an Excluded Party, or, in the alternative, seeks
permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). (Axiom’s Mem. 10, 12.) First, Axiom argues
that it timely filed its motion to intervene because the Court has not approved the Distribution
Plan. (Id. at 11.) Second, Axiom argues that its interest is “substantial” because designating
Axiom as an Excluded Party will cause “deep financial and reputational harm.” (Id.) In
addition, Axiom argues that it has “an interest in the substantial indemnification amounts” owed
by the GPB funds, and “an interest in protecting its rights under the Dealer Agreements.” (Id.)
Third, Axiom argues that its interests will be impaired if it is not permitted to intervene “because
the Receiver has unilaterally asked this Court to approve a [Distribution Plan] excluding

Axiom.” (Id.) Finally, Axiom argues that they will “not be[] adequately represented by the
existing parties” because “[n]o party has standing to obtain the indemnification Axiom is owed.”
(Id. at 12.) Axiom argues that if the Court denies its motion to intervene as of right that the
Court should grant Axiom permissive intervention because “Axiom’s involvement will
significantly contribute to the ‘just and equitable adjudication’ of an Excluded Party’s rights
under the Proposed Distribution Plan.” (Id.)
B9 seeks to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or, in the alternative permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). (B9’s Mem. 1,
9.) B9 argues that they satisfy all four requirements for intervention as of right. First, B9 argues
that they timely filed their motion to intervene after the Receivership Order went into effect and
MTF Realty and Cold Storage II requested a stay of the New York State Action. (Id. at 7–8.)
Second, B9 argues that they have a “substantial interest related to the subject matter of this
action” because MTF Realty and Cold Storage II have “incorrectly” taken the position that they
are “‘Receivership Assets’ such that they are entitled to invoke the litigation-stay provision of

the Receivership Order.” (Id. at 8.) In addition, B9 argues that MTF Realty and Cold Storage II
“have seemingly implied that B9 may need to wait and pursue its claims . . . as some sort of
competing creditor of the Receivership Estate.” (Id.) They argue that they “therefore ha[ve] a
clear interest in confirming that the Receivership Order does not . . . stay the [New York] State
Action.” (Id.) Third, B9 contends that “[a]bsent clarification from the Court regarding B9’s
right to proceed with its claims in the [New York] State Action, [MTF Realty and Cold Storage
II] will doubtless maintain that the Receivership Order stayed the [New York] State Action” and
that B9 cannot recover the funds that are disputed in the New York State Action. (Id. at 8–9.)
Finally, B9 argues that “no party to this action has any specific interest in B9’s recovery” under

the sale agreement for the New Jersey property.” B9 contends that if the Court does not grant
intervention as of right under Rule 24(a), the Court should allow B9 to permissively intervene
“based on the common questions in the [New York] State Action and the Receivership Order.”
(Id. at 9.)
DJ Partners also seeks to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.19 (Ascendant Strategies & DJ Partners’ Objs. 2.) DJ Partners argues
that because the Distribution Plan designates them as an Excluded Party, the Distribution Plan
“seeks to alter and impair DJ Partners[’] rights and interests.” (Id.) They also argue that the

19 DJ Partners does not move in the alternative for permissive intervention pursuant to
Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
motion is timely filed prior to the deadline to Object to the Distribution Plan, and that no existing
party can formally object to the Distribution Plan on behalf of DJ Partners. (Id.)
The Receiver does not “oppose Axiom’s right to be heard and raise any valid objections
to the [Distribution] Plan.” (Receivers Reply 3 n.2.) The Receiver opposes B9’s motion to
intervene, (Receiver’s Opp’n), but does not indicate whether he objects or consents to DJ

Partners’ motion to intervene.
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows intervention as of right under
certain circumstances. It provides in pertinent part that “[o]n timely motion, the court must
permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that
is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); see also In re N.Y.C. Policing
During Summer 2020 Demonstrations, 27 F.4th 792, 799 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(a)); Penn-Star Ins. Co. v. McElhatton, 818 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2020) (same); Bridgeport

Guardians, Inc. v. Delmonte, 602 F.3d 469, 473 (2d Cir. 2010) (same). To establish intervention
as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), an intervenor must show that “(1) the motion is timely;
(2) the applicant asserts an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the
action; (3) the applicant is so situated that without intervention, disposition of the action may, as
a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; and (4) the
applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by the other parties.” XL Specialty Ins. Co. v.
Lakian, 632 F. App’x 667, 669 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting MasterCard Int’l Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv.
Ass’n, 471 F.3d 377, 389 (2d Cir. 2006)); see also CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l
Ass’n, 790 F. App’x 260, 262 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting MasterCard Int’l Inc., 471 F.3d at 389).
“The ‘[f]ailure to satisfy any one of these [four] requirements is a sufficient ground to deny the
application.’” Penn-Star Ins. Co., 818 F. App’x at 70 (alterations in original) (emphasis omitted)
(quoting R Best Produce, Inc. v. Shulman-Rabin Mktg. Corp., 467 F.3d 238, 241 (2d Cir. 2006));
Harris-Clemons v. Charly Trademarks Ltd., 751 F. App’x 83, 85 (2d Cir. 2018) (“If the party
fails to satisfy any one of the factors, the application for intervention must be denied.” (citing
Catanzano by Catanzano v. Wing, 103 F.3d 223, 232 (2d Cir. 1996))).

Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to exercise its
discretion and permit intervention under certain circumstances. It provides in pertinent part that
“[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense
that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B);
see also Extenet Sys., LLC v. Vill. of Kings Point, No. 22-1265, 2023 WL 4044076, at *1 (2d Cir.
June 16, 2023) (“Rule 24(b) . . . provides that a district court may permit an individual to
intervene when he asserts ‘a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b))); Penn-Star Ins. Co., 818 F. App’x at
70 (same); Griffin v. Sheeran, 767 F. App’x 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2019) (same); Floyd v. City of New

York, 770 F.3d 1051, 1057 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). “‘In exercising its discretion,’ the court must
‘consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of
the original parties,’ . . . ‘the nature and extent of the intervenors’ interests, the degree to which
those interests are adequately represented by other parties, and whether parties seeking
intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the underlying factual issues in
the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented.’” Citizens
Against Casino Gambling in Erie Cnty. v. Hogen, 417 F. App’x 49, 50 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting
H.L. Hayden Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1986)).
Permissive intervention is wholly within the court’s discretion. See Extenet Sys., 2023 WL
4044076, at *2 (“When a district court denies a request for permissive intervention, our review is
‘particularly deferential.’” (quoting AT & T Corp v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561 (2d Cir.
2005))); Penn-Star Ins. Co., 818 F. App’x at 70 (“Rule 24(b) . . . provides for permissive
intervention, at the discretion of the court . . . .”); St. John’s Univ., N.Y. v. Bolton, 450 F. App’x
81, 84 (2d Cir. 2011) (“A district court has broad discretion under Rule 24(b) to determine
whether to permit intervention . . . .”).

As a general matter, courts are reluctant to grant intervention in SEC enforcement
actions. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Alexandre, No. 22-CV-3822, 2024 WL
622107, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2024) (“Courts are generally ‘reluctant to allow private parties
to intervene in government enforcement actions’ because such intervention imposes undue costs
and burdens on the government . . . .” (quoting Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v.
Efrosman, No. 05-CV-8422, 2012 WL 2510338, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2012))); Sec. & Exch.
Comm’n v. Callahan, 193 F. Supp. 3d 177, 206 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (explaining that government
entities bringing enforcement actions “are mandated to act in the interest of maximizing the
recovery to all defrauded individuals and . . . are often presumed to be adequately representing

the interests of non-party investors”); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Byers, No. 08-CV-7104, 2008
WL 5102017, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008) (“As practical matter, it does not make sense to
allow individual victims and creditors to intervene as parties.”).
i. Axiom and DJ Partners
In addition to the fact that intervention is disfavored in SEC actions, Axiom and DJ
Partners have not demonstrated that their interests would be impaired if they do not intervene in
this case.20 Their arguments that denying intervention would impair their interests because they

20 Because the Court finds that Axiom and DJ Partners fail to show that their interests
would be impaired if they are not permitted to intervene, the Court need not address the
remaining three Rule 24(a) factors for intervention.
cannot “challenge [their] status as an ‘Excluded Party’” and that the Distribution Plan deprives
them of distributions, (Axiom’s Mem. 11; see also Ascendant Strategies & DJ Partners’ Objs. 3–
4), mischaracterizes the Distribution Plan. As the Receiver explains, “being listed as an
Excluded Party simply means that a claimant does not receive distributions automatically.”
(Receiver’s Reply 9.) Axiom and DJ Partners may “submit a claim [for distributions] to be

reviewed by the Receiver, whose decision on the claim would then be subject to judicial review.”
(Id.) Identifying Axiom and DJ Partners as “Excluded Parties” therefore does not cause them
“deep financial and reputational harm,” (Axiom’s Mem. 11), nor does it deprive them of
receiving subsequent distributions from the Funds. They are simply excluded from receiving an
Initial Distribution and required to submit to the Receiver a claim for the amount they believe
they are entitled to receive, as the Distribution Plan requires of nearly all claimants seeking
distribution.21 (Distribution Plan 20 (“Each Claimant (excluding Exempt Claimants) must
properly complete and sign a Proof of Claim Form.”)) The Court therefore denies the motions to
intervene by Axiom and DJ Partners because they have failed to show that denying intervention

would deprive them of an ability to protect their interests. See Alexandre, 2024 WL 622107, at
*3 (denying intervention in a government enforcement action where the proposed intervenor
simply “disagreed with the strategy proposed by the [r]eceiver and adopted by the [c]ourt”); Sec.
& Exch. Comm’n v. Rockford Funding Grp., LLC, No. 09-CV-10047, 2015 WL 13870312, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2015) (denying intervention because the proposed intervenor could, “[a]s an
injured investor, . . . [file] a proof of claim once the proposed distribution plan is approved” and
“may pursue his claim pursuant to the distribution plan and claims procedures approved and
monitored by this [c]ourt”); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Illarramendi, No. 11-CV-78, 2012 WL

21 The Court addresses Objectors’ arguments regarding the Plan’s “Excluded Party”
designation in further detail below. See section II.b.ii.1 infra.
5832330, at *2, *4 (D. Conn. Nov. 16, 2012) (denying intervention because the proposed
intervenors had “not established why intervention is the only appropriate method” where receiver
had established an “open process” for claimants to object to receiver’s settlement plan).
The Court also denies Axiom’s motion for permissive intervention. Axiom’s assertion
that its intervention will “significantly contribute” to the “just and equitable adjudication” of

Excluded Parties’ rights is unsupported. (Axiom’s Mem. 12.) As discussed above and in section
II.b.ii.1 infra, the Distribution Plan does not impair Excluded Parties’ rights. The Distribution
Plan merely prevents the Excluded Parties from receiving Initial Distributions, but permits them
to seek distributions from the Receiver, and the opportunity to seek the Court’s review if they are
dissatisfied with the Receiver’s resolution of their claim for distribution. (Distribution Plan 4, 8,
13.) In addition, even if the Court agreed with Axiom that the Distribution Plan impaired
Excluded Parties’ rights, Axiom has not demonstrated why the current parties, which are also
designated as Excluded Parties, do not adequately represent the rights of Excluded Parties.
Axiom has therefore failed to demonstrate either that its intervention will contribute to the “just

and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented” or that its interests are not
“adequately represented by other parties.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Callahan, 2 F. Supp. 3d 427,
436 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); see also Authors Guild v. Open AI, Inc., 345 F.R.D. 585, 590–91
(S.D.N.Y. 2024) (denying permissive intervention on a similar basis as denial of movant’s
motion for intervention as of right, including that movant “failed to establish a cognizable
interest” and therefore could not establish that their interest would be impaired, and that movant
failed to show “that the existing parties would not adequately represent their hypothetical
interest”), appeal dismissed sub nom. Guild v. Tremblay, No. 24-1007, 2024 WL 4564683 (2d
Cir. Oct. 4, 2024), and Basbanes v. Microsoft Corp., No. 24-1014, 2024 WL 4564684 (2d Cir.
Oct. 4, 2024); Extenet Sys., 2023 WL 4044076, at *2 (affirming the district court’s decision
denying permissive intervention where the district court determined that the movant’s interests
were adequately represented by an existing party); Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC v. Shumlin,
No. 11-CV-99, 2011 WL 2173785, at *5 (D. Vt. June 2, 2011) (denying permissive intervention
where the movants interests “[we]re adequately represented” and the movants had “not explained
how their [intervention] would avoid duplicating the arguments and evidence presented by

existing [d]efendants”). The Court denies Axiom’s motion for permissive intervention.
ii. B9
B9 also has not demonstrated that their interests will be impaired if they do not intervene
in this case.22 They argue that denying intervention “would severely prejudice B9’s contractual
rights and expectations related to the [e]scrow [a]mount and the [New York] State Action”
because the stay prevents B9 from “obtain[ing] the [e]scrow [a]mount for the indefinite future (if
ever).” (B9’s Mem. 9.)
The injunction only stays the litigation so that the Receiver can focus on administering
the Receivership Estate and disbursing funds to defrauded investors and does not prevent B9
from ever accessing the funds. As B9 recognizes, the MTF Realty and Cold Storage II’s transfer

of the escrow funds was “irrevocable” and they are “beyond the[ir] possession and control . . .
while [they] are in the hands of the escrow agent,” (id. at 15 (citations omitted)), therefore, while
the litigation injunction is in place, the escrow funds remain effectively frozen. Nothing in the
Receivership Order prevents B9 from litigating its claim to the escrow funds after the injunction
is lifted. B9 has thus not persuaded the Court that its interests will be impaired if they do not
intervene in this case. See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Xia, No. 21-CV-5350, 2024 WL 964676, at

22 Because the Court finds that B9 fails to show that their interests would be impaired if
they are not permitted to intervene, the Court need not address the remaining three Rule 24(a)
factors for intervention.
*11–12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2024) (explaining a non-party demonstrated impairment of its
interests because the defendant’s mismanagement directly contributed to the “value of the
properties . . . significantly depreciat[ing] during the pendency of the litigation,” and thus
proposed intervenor’s “ability to participate in th[e] litigation and protect its interests from
further dissipation” would be limited without intervention); U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v.

Santillo, 327 F.R.D. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (denying intervention because the movant’s
interests would not be impaired where “[a]ny assets the movant may be entitled to have been
frozen” because that “freeze [wa]s sufficient to protect the movant’s potential judgment during
the pendency of the underlying action”). The Court therefore denies B9’s motion for
intervention as of right.
The Court also declines to grant B9 permissive intervention. First, B9 provided no
support for its argument that there are common questions of law or fact between the New York
State Action and the Receivership Order. Illarramendi, 2012 WL 5832330, at *5 (denying
permissive intervention where “[m]ovants ha[d] not identified any questions in common with the

underlying SEC enforcement action against [d]efendant”). Second, “[c]oncerns about undue
delay and complication resulting from permissive intervention are acute where the [g]overnment,
and particularly the SEC, is a party to the underlying action.” Callahan, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 439
(first alteration in original) (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm’ns v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., No. 03-
CV-2937, 2003 WL 22000340, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2003)). In this case, as the Receiver
argues and as the Court discusses in further detail below, see section II.b.iii infra, granting
intervention would interfere with the Receiver’s ability to administer the Receivership Estate and
would deplete funds available for long-waiting investors. See Santillo, 327 F.R.D. at 51–52
(denying permissive intervention because it “would create delay, increase the parties’ workload,
and add additional issues”); Callahan, 2. F. Supp. 3d at 439 (denying intervention where a non-
party sought “to exercise its rights to its collateral,” but such intervention would disrupt
“[r]eceiver’s ability to administer the [r]eceivership [e]state and recover assets for the
[i]nvestors”); Illarramendi, 2012 WL 5832330, at *5 (explaining that, “even where the common
questions of law or fact” requirement “for permissive intervention is met, a court has the
discretion to deny intervention if it would unduly delay or prejudice the main case” (internal

quotation marks omitted)). The Court therefore denies B9’s motion for permissive intervention.
b. The Distribution Plan is fair and reasonable
The Court first evaluates the Distribution Plan and then addresses the various objections
to the Plan, including objections to Excluded Party designations, the Receiver’s authority to
waive privileges, rights to advancement costs, and distributions to transferees of GPB. The
Court concludes by addressing objections to the litigation injunction and requests for leave from
the litigation injunction.
i. The Distribution Plan is fair and reasonable
The Court finds that the Plan is fair and reasonable and accordingly approves the
Distribution Plan.
“While ‘the power of a securities receiver is not without [its] limits,’” a district court

appoints a federal receiver under its equitable discretion “to restore to a defrauded entity or
defrauded persons that which was fraudulently diverted from its or their custody and control.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Malek, 397 F. App’x 711, 713 (2d Cir. 2010) (first quoting Eberhard v.
Marcu, 530 F.3d 122, 132 (2d Cir. 2008); and then quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Shiv, 379 F.
Supp. 2d 609, 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Varacchi, No. 17-CV-155, 2021
WL 10361074, at *6 (D. Conn. July 30, 2021) (“Although not specifically set forth in the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, ‘the Second Circuit has held that district courts have the
power to appoint receivers at the SEC’s request to restore to a defrauded entity or defrauded
persons that which was fraudulently diverted from its or their custody and control.’” (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Callahan, 193 F. Supp. 3d at 188)).
“District courts possess broad power to remedy violations of federal securities laws.”
Eberhard, 530 F.3d at 131; Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Alexandre, No. 22-CV-
3822, 2025 WL 252435, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2025) (“In reviewing an equity receiver’s

proposed method of distributing assets, courts have broad discretion to ‘determine how and to
whom the money will be distributed.’” (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Fischbach Corp., 133
F.3d 170, 175 (2d Cir. 1997))); U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Ahmed, No. 15-CV-675, 2024 WL
5182669, at *4 (D. Conn. Nov. 27, 2024) (“As the [c]ourt has previously explained, ‘once the
district court has found federal securities law violations, it has broad equitable power to fashion
appropriate remedies, including ordering that culpable defendants disgorge their profits.’”
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Ahmed, 343 F. Supp.
3d 16, 26 (D. Conn. 2018))). “[O]nce the district court satisfies itself that the distribution of
proceeds” in a disbursement plan “is fair and reasonable, its review is at an end.” Sec. & Exch.

Comm’n v. Amerindo Inv. Advisors, 639 F. App’x 752, 755 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Sec. & Exch.
Comm’n v. Wang, 944 F.2d 80, 85 (2d Cir. 1991)); Alexandre, 2025 WL 252435, at *3 (“The
goal is to establish a plan of distribution that is ‘fair and reasonable’ in light of the specific
circumstances of the case.” (quoting Varacchi, 2021 WL 10361074, at *6)). In determining if a
proposed plan is fair and reasonable, the court “may defer to the receiver’s choices for the plan’s
details and should give substantial weight to the SEC’s views regarding a plan’s merits.” Sec. &
Exch. Comm’n v. Amerindo Inv. Advisors Inc., No. 05-CV-5231, 2017 WL 3017504, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2017) (citation omitted); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Byers, 637 F. Supp. 2d 166,
175 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (explaining that the “SEC’s judgment [of a proposed distribution plan] is
entitled to deference from th[e] [c]ourt” and that the court “may give weight to the [r]eceiver’s
judgment” of the plan), aff’d sub nom. Malek, 397 F. App’x 711, and Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v.
Orgel, 407 F. App’x 504 (2d Cir. 2010).
First, the SEC and the Receiver support the Distribution Plan, and their judgments are
entitled to deference in the Court’s evaluation of the plan. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Qin,
No. 20-CV-10849, 2024 WL 5183167, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2024) (explaining a receiver’s

proposed claims procedures are “fair and equitable” because the plan “has the support of both the
[r]eceiver and the SEC” and their judgments “may be given weight in crafting a remedy”); Sec.
& Exch. Comm’n v. AR Cap., LLC, No. 19-CV-6603, 2021 WL 1988084, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May
18, 2021) (explaining that the court may defer to the receiver’s plan and should give substantial
weight to the SEC’s evaluation of the receiver’s plan). Second, the Distribution Plan provides
claimants a reasonable opportunity to be heard through the Claims Process or the Court if
unresolvable disputes arise, all while prioritizing the efficient distribution of funds to long-
waiting investors. See Qin, 2024 WL 5183167, at *3–4 (explaining a claims process satisfied
due process where receiver proposed to “classify all timely submitted claims from investors,”

apply a method for determining the investor’s distribution, and provide an opportunity for the
investor to “resolve any objections to the [r]eceiver’s claim determinations”); Callahan, 193 F.
Supp. 3d at 204–05 (explaining that the “Due Process clause requires that non-party claimants
. . . be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard before a [r]eceiver or a [c]ourt resolves its
claims”); Byers, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 184 (approving a distribution plan that “provide[s] investors
and creditors with adequate notice of their recovery, . . . permit[s] them to discuss the specifics
of their claims with the [r]eceiver, and, if the parties cannot resolve the matter, will permit them
to make their case before the [c]ourt” because courts have the “authority, in implementing a
distribution plan in a receivership case, to use summary proceedings to evaluate claims and claim
priority, provided the parties have an opportunity to be heard to argue their claims”). Third, the
Court agrees with the Receiver’s conclusion that the funds should be distributed on a
partnership-by-partnership basis rather than a pro rata basis. No entity or potential claimant has
objected to that aspect of Distribution Plan, and the Court concludes that partnership-by-
partnership distribution is appropriate in view of the fact that each Fund had its own investment
objectives, that the Funds did not share assets, and that the Receiver has “not encountered any

difficulty in segregating and ascertaining individual assets and liabilities.” (Receiver’s Mot. 22.)
See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Morgan, No. 19-CV-661, 2020 WL 6536894, at *6 (W.D.N.Y.
Nov. 6, 2020) (approving a distribution plan on a fund-by-fund basis where the investors “had
different relationships with [d]efendants, the terms of their agreements with [d]efendants were
different, and there [was] no evidence before the [c]ourt . . . that their funds were commingled in
a manner supporting a pro rata distribution”). Cf. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd.,
290 F.3d 80, 88–89 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Courts have favored pro rata distribution of assets where, as
here, the funds of the defrauded victims were commingled and where victims were similarly
situated with respect to their relationship to the defrauders.”); AR Cap., 2021 WL 1988084, at *5

(explaining that distribution on a pro rata basis is appropriate where “funds have been
commingled” and the victims were ‘similarly situated with respect to their relationship to the
defrauders’” (quoting Byers, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 177)).
ii. Objections to the Distribution Plan
1. Excluded Parties
Axiom objects to Receiver’s designation of Axiom as an Excluded Party.23 Axiom
argues that it is improperly named as an Excluded Party because it was not “convicted or accused

23 Although the Court denies Axiom’s and DJ Partners’ motions to intervene, the Court
addresses their objections to the Distribution Plan. A district court may consider objections to a
distribution plan if the proposed plan will affect the objector’s “financial interests such that they
of various misconduct with regard to the” Funds. (Axiom’s Mem. 8 (quoting Receiver’s Mot.
38).) Axiom contends that “[n]one of the Defendants ever held any interest in Axiom or had the
ability to control Axiom.” (Id.) In addition, Axiom argues that it is not a GPB investor, “does
not own any interest in the []Funds, and would not be entitled to any funds from” the Initial or
Subsequent Distributions. (Id.) Axiom argues that it was not notified of the Distribution Plan or

that the Receiver would name Axiom as an Excluded Party, that its exclusion has no factual
basis, and that the Distribution Plan provides no mechanism for Axiom to challenge the
designation. (Id. at 9, 11–12; Axiom’s Reply 2–3.) Axiom suggests that “[t]he sole basis for the
Receiver’s improper designation of Axiom as an Excluded Party appears to be an effort to avoid
the GPB Funds’ obligation to indemnify Axiom.” (Axiom’s Mem. 12.) Axiom has several
“Dealer Agreements” with various Funds. (Id. at 5.) It contends that pursuant to those
agreements, GPB must “indemnify and hold harmless [Axiom] from and against any losses,
claims, damages or liabilities to which [Axiom] may become subject . . . insofar as such losses . .
. arise out of or are based upon an untrue statement or alleged untrue statement of material fact

contained in the [Private Placement Memorandum].” (Id.) Axiom has requested indemnification
from GPB on more than one occasion, beginning in April of 2021, but those requests were either
denied or received no response. (Id. at 6.)
Axiom argues that the Distribution Plan is not “fair or reasonable because it violates
Axiom’s due process rights” since the Receiver did not serve Axiom with the plan or otherwise

have a legitimate interest in the method of distribution of the [companies’] remaining assets.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Morgan, No. 19-CV-661, 2020 WL 6536894, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 6,
2020) (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Illarramendi, No. 11-CV-78, 2014 WL 5460816, at *2
n.4 (D. Conn. Oct. 27, 2014), aff’d sub nom. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Michael Kenwood Cap.
Mgmt., LLC, 630 F. App’x 89 (2d Cir. 2015)). There is no dispute that the Plan affects the
financial interests of Axiom and DJ Partners, and the Court accordingly considers their
objections.
notify Axiom that they were an Excluded Party. (Id. at 13.) In addition, Axiom argues that the
Distribution Plan violates Axiom’s procedural due process rights because it does not provide an
“opportunity for claimants to be heard” to challenge their designation as an Excluded Party. (Id.
at 14 (citation omitted).) They argue that Axiom’s only option is to “accept their status as an
Excluded Party, and then send a ‘Claim’ for indemnification wherein the receiver has complete

autonomy to deny such indemnification.” (Id. at 14.) Submitting a claim would also require
Axiom to “effectively waive its right to arbitration under the Dealer Agreements” and would
create the possibility that Receiver would “share information with third parties that would
otherwise be protected under the Dealer Agreement’s confidentiality provisions.” (Id. at 14–15.)
Axiom argues that this “is not a mechanism for Axiom to challenge its Excluded Party status,”
but requires them to “accept its improper designation as an Excluded Party . . . just to get the
indemnity owed.” (Axiom’s Reply 5.) Axiom therefore requests that the Court modify the
Distribution Plan to remove Axiom from the “Excluded Party” list. (Axiom’s Mem. 15.)
Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital argue that the Receiver violated due process

by not notifying them that the Distribution Plan would designate them as “Excluded Parties,” and
therefore deprived them of a “notice and opportunity to be heard” before being excluded, and
that Gentile and Schneider are erroneously excluded.24 (Defs.’ Objs. 12.) They argue that the
Distribution Plan “falls far short of establishing the minimum due process requirements of notice
and an opportunity to be heard and, in fact, contains no procedure at all,” but makes the Receiver
“sole arbiter” and gives him “unfettered power and discretion to determine whether a person or
entity should be deprived of their interest in distributions.” (Id. at 14.) In addition, they argue
that the Receiver has not provided Gentile or Schneider with evidence supporting his decisions to

24 Ascendant Strategies and DJ Partners join Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital’s
objections. (Ascendant Strategies & DJ Partners’ Objs. 3.)
exclude them, and also prevents Excluded Parties from challenging their designation. (Id. at 15.)
They further argue that, even if the Receiver had excluded Gentile and Schneider after a proper
procedure, their exclusion is nevertheless improper because they “hold substantial personal
investments in the GPB Funds and are ‘Investors’ as defined under the . . . Plan.” (Id. at 16.)
They contend that “[t]here has been no finding of liability in this case,” the “verdicts in the

criminal case do not establish liability in this case,” and that no court has ruled on the SEC’s
probability of success on the merits.” (Id. at 17.) They argue that thus, the Receiver improperly
excluded Gentile and Schneider based on “general principles of equity” and the bare assertion
that those “who are convicted or accused of various misconduct” with regard to the Funds should
be barred from distributions. (Id.) Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital argue that the
SEC’s judgment regarding the Distribution Plan, and specifically the privilege, advancement,
and due process issues they raise, should not be afforded deference under Loper Bright
Enterprises v. Raimondo. (Id. at 18–19 (citing Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369
(2024)).) Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital therefore request that the Court amend the

Distribution Plan by “establishing a fair and adequate process by which persons may be deemed
‘Excluded Parties’ consistent with the Due Process clause and not denying [Gentile, Schneider,
and Ascendant Capital] (or any other party deemed ‘Excluded’) their property rights without
such due process” and requiring “sufficient amounts [to] be withheld in reserve to cover [Gentile
and Schneider’s] distributions.” (Id. at 1–2, 18 (citation omitted).)
Ascendant Strategies and DJ Partners argue that the Receiver has no evidentiary basis for
designating them as “Excluded Parties.” (Ascendant Strategies & DJ Partners’ Objs. 3.) First,
they argue that the Receiver failed to notify them about their designation as Excluded Parties.
(Id.) Second, they argue that the “Receiver has failed to offer any evidence or explanation for
why [Ascendant Strategies] and DJ Partners should be designated as ‘Excluded Parties.’” (Id.)
They note that, although Gentile and Schneider own Ascendant Strategies and DJ Partners, they
were not parties in the criminal action against Gentile and Schneider, and have not been found
liable in this case. (Id.) Third, they argue that the Receiver “offers no argument or explanation
for why the independent corporate forms of [Ascendant Strategies] and DJ Partners should be
disregarded.” (Id. at 3–4.) Ascendant Strategies and DJ Partners therefore request that the Court

“order the Receiver to revise the [Distribution] Plan to address the issues raised herein and in
Gentile, Schneider, and [Ascendant Capital’s] Limited Objection.” (Id. at 4.) Specifically, they
ask the Court to “remove [Ascendant Strategies] and DJ Partners’ designation as Excluded
Parties, and allow them to fully participate in distributions as Investors,” or, “at the very least . . .
notice and an opportunity to be heard by this Court before excluding them, and that sufficient
amounts will be withheld in reserve to cover their distributions in the interim.” (Id.)
The Receiver argues that the Excluded Parties list is properly “limited to individuals or
entities that are alleged to have engaged in the underlying fraud or their affiliates.” (Receiver’s
Reply 2.) He argues that “[n]either the Court nor the Receiver has made any final factual

determinations about the Excluded Parties or decided whether they are entitled to receive
distributions under the [Distribution] Plan.” (Id.) The Receiver argues that “[i]n his business
judgment, . . . and in light of the jury verdicts in the criminal trial, the Receiver believes it would
be inappropriate and contrary to the interests of the Receivership Estate to distribute funds to the
Excluded Parties as part of an Initial Distribution without additional investigation, fact-finding,
and process.” (Id. at 6.) He further argues that it would not be fair “to hold up all payments” to
investors until fact-finding involving the Excluded Parties is complete. (Id.) The Receiver
contends that Excluded Parties “simply must engage in an additional and entirely reasonable
process in order to establish their entitlement to any distributions.” (Id. at 2.) The Receiver
confirms that “the funds earmarked for the Excluded Parties are set aside and reserved for in
accordance with the [Distribution] Plan.” (Id.) He contends “[t]his is fully consistent with Due
Process” because “[a]ll of the Objectors plainly have notice that they were named as Excluded
Parties, and all retain the right [to] be heard by this Court and to seek distributions from the
Receivership Estate.” (Id. at 9.)
Objectors have not demonstrated that their designation as Excluded Parties violates their

Due Process rights. The Second Circuit has explained that “[s]o long as the district court is
satisfied that, ‘in the aggregate, the [distribution] plan is equitable and reasonable,’ the SEC may
engage in the ‘kind of line-drawing [that] inevitably leaves out some potential claimants.” Off.
Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of WorldCom., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 467 F.3d 73, 82–83
(2d Cir. 2006) (third alteration in original) (quoting Wang, 994 F.2d at 88). The Court has
already concluded that the Distribution Plan is fair and reasonable, and further finds that it is
entirely appropriate for the Receiver to prioritize making “payments to clearly innocent victims”
in the Initial Distribution, and requiring further fact-finding and processing before making
distributions to “GPB entit[ies] or [entities that are] alleged to have participated in the alleged

fraudulent scheme.” (Receiver’s Reply 4, 6.) As the Receiver explains, and as the Court
discussed above, the Excluded Party designation does not deprive Objectors of distributions, nor
does it deprive them of notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Distribution Plan only
requires Excluded Parties to “submit a Proof of Claim to the Receiver, who will review and
resolve it just as he would any other Proof of Claim,” including the option to “seek review by
this Court” if they are “dissatisfied with the Receiver’s resolution of their claim.” (Id. at 4, 9.)
The Receiver has also explained that he has “earmarked” funds for the Objectors’ claims. (Id. at
2.) The Distribution Plan therefore does not deprive Objectors of any distributions to which they
are entitled and satisfies due process by providing an opportunity for Excluded Parties to contest
the Receiver’s rejection of their claims. See Illarramendi, 2014 WL 5460816, at *2 (explaining
that the receiver’s plan satisfied due process because objector may utilize the “claims
administration process,” including “the opportunity to seek judicial review of his objection to the
[r]eceiver’s denial of his claim,” and receiver had reserved the “maximum potential value” of
receiver’s claim); Byers, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 184 (“It is well-settled that a [d]istrict [c]ourt has the
authority, in implementing a distribution plan in a receivership case, to use summary proceedings

to evaluate claims and claim priority, provided the parties have an opportunity to be heard to
argue their claims.” (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1567 (11th Cir.
1992))).
In addition, other district courts in this circuit have approved distribution plans excluding
parties who were involved or potentially involved in defrauding investors, as Objectors were in
this case. (Receiver’s Reply 4 (“Excluded Parties . . . [are each] a GPB entity or [are] alleged to
have participated in the alleged fraudulent scheme and is a defendant in at least one suit focusing
on the same alleged scheme.”).) AR Cap., 2021 WL 1988084, at *6, *9 (approving a distribution
plan that barred “excluded parties,” including defendants and other entities related to defendants,

from receiving distributions); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. CR Intrinsic Invs., LLC, 164 F. Supp. 3d
433, 436, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (approving a distribution plan that excluded, among other
entities, affiliates of defendants who “were directly involved in the conduct detailed in the
[c]omplaint”).
The Court accordingly finds that the objections to the Excluded Party designation by
Axiom, Gentile, Schneider, Ascendant Capital, Ascendant Strategies, and DJ Partners are
without merit and therefore declines to revise the Excluded Parties list.
2. Privileges
Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital argue that the Distribution Plan “contravenes
the applicable law of privilege,” and “fails to account for [Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant
Capital’s] privileges that GPB and now the Receiver[] ha[ve] no right to waive unilaterally.”
(Defs.’ Objs 3.) They argue that “there are both common-interest and joint-client relationships
that give [Objectors] privilege rights over documents and communications in GPB’s possession
— which are now in the Receiver’s possession” but over which Gentile, Schneider, and
Ascendant Capital retain privilege. (Id. at 5.) Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital note

that, in the Receivership Order, the Court explained that “[t]o the extent the [R]eceiver seeks to
waive privileged conversations of others, [the R]eceiver is required to ‘comply with applicable
law in the exercise of such privileges or immunities.’” (Id. at 5–6 (quoting GPB Cap. Holdings,
2023 WL 8468467, at *18).) They argue that the Distribution Plan contains a provision giving
him the “sole authority” to “enforce, waive, assign or release any or all Privileges in the exercise
of his duties as Receiver.” (Id. at 6 (quoting Receiver’s Mem. 50).) Gentile, Schneider, and
Ascendant Capital argue that the Receiver’s privilege provision is “at odds with both governing
law and the Court’s Order requiring compliance with the laws of privilege — an Order which
was upheld by the Second Circuit.” (Id.) Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital therefore

request that the Court amend the Distribution Plan by “requiring a workable mechanism ensuring
timely advance notice to holders of individual and joint privileges and [an] opportunity to object
to avoid unilateral and improper waivers of privileges.” (Id. at 1 (citation omitted).)
The Receiver argues that “there is no dispute” about privileged information because the
Receiver “has reaffirmed to Gentile and Schneider that the Receiver’s right to waive privilege
applies only to privileges held by the Receivership Entities and does not extend to any privileges
held by Gentile or Schneider individually.” (Receiver’s Reply 3.) The Receiver notes that none
of the Objectors are Receivership Entities, and the Receivership Order only authorizes the
Receiver to waive privileges or immunities of the Receivership Entities, the Monitor, and the
Monitorship. (Id. at 7–8.) The Receiver also explains that he has informed Gentile, Schneider,
and Ascendant Strategies that “he does not interpret either the [Distribution] Plan or the
Receivership Order to authorize the Receiver to waive privileges belonging to Gentile,
Schneider, or Ascendant” Strategies. (Id. at 8 (citation omitted).) He also informed Gentile and
Schneider via email that if he “decides to share with third parties documents that could include
information as to which a personal legal privilege would exist . . . the Receiver will agree to (i)

provide . . . advance notice of such intent, and (ii) cooperate . . . in good faith concerning
appropriate steps” to protect Gentile and Schneider’s privilege. (Id. at 8 (citation omitted).) The
Receiver argues that “set[ting] up a one-size-fits-all process for a possible review of privileged
documents in the event that a dispute over privilege someday arises . . . threatens to needlessly
run up even more litigation costs.” (Id. at 3.)
The Court is not persuaded by Objectors’ arguments that the Distribution Plan
contravenes applicable privilege laws. First, the Distribution Plan, by its terms, only transfers to
the Receiver “attorney-client privilege, work product protection, common interest or joint
defense privilege, or other privilege or immunity . . . of the Receivership Entities, the Monitor,

the Monitorship.” (Distribution Plan 39.) As the Receiver has explained, neither the
Distribution Plan nor the Receivership Order transfers any of Gentile, Schneider, or Ascendant
Capital’s privileges to the Receiver. (Receiver’s Reply 20.) Second, the Receiver confirmed that
his authority to waive privileges “applies only to privileges held by the Receivership Entities and
does not extend to any privileges held by Gentile or Schneider individually.” (Id. at 3.) As the
Court previously explained in detail in the Receivership Order, GPB Cap. Holdings, 2023 WL
8468467, at *17–19, it is settled law that receivers have the power to waive attorney-client
privileges of the entities they manage. See Sec. & Exch. Commn v. Ryan, 747 F. Supp. 2d 355,
367 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (explaining that “[a]s the successor in interest, and as a matter of law” the
receiver “controls the attorney-client privilege” for the receivership entity); United States v.
Shapiro, No. 06-CR-357, 2007 WL 2914218, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2007) (“[I]f the [r]eceiver
is to be permitted to pursue litigation on [the receivership entity’s] behalf, there is no reason why
he should be unable to exercise his discretion to waive its corporate privileges in connection with
that litigation or in other contexts.”); Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Standard Forex,
Inc., 882 F. Supp. 40, 44–45 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (explaining that “there is no prejudice that would

ensue by granting to the [r]eceiver the right to control the [receivership entity’s] attorney-client
privilege” and “there is no chilling effect . . . since the attorney-client privilege of [the
receivership entity] remain[s] in the hands of its management, the [r]eceiver here”). Finally,
because the Receiver holds GPB’s common interest privilege with respect to its own privileged
statements, the Receiver is free to assert or waive that privilege as he chooses. See United States
v. Hatfield, No. 06-CR-550, 2009 WL 3806300, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2009) (“A member of
a joint defense agreement can waive the privilege with respect to its own communications, but
typically cannot disclose privileged information received from other joint defense agreement
members.” (first citing United States v. Agnello, 135 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (E.D.N.Y. 2001),

aff d, 16 F. App’x 57 (2d Cir. 2001); then citing United States v. Salvagno, 306 F. Supp. 2d 258,
273 (N.D.N.Y. 2004); and then citing In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910,
922 (8th Cir. 1997))); Agnello, 135 F. Supp. 2d at 383 (“A client who is part of a joint defense
arrangement is entitled to waive the privilege for his own statements, and his co-defendants
cannot preclude him from doing so.”). While nothing in the Distribution Plan or the Receiver’s
filings indicates that the Receiver seeks to contravene applicable privilege laws, the Court
reiterates that to the extent the Receiver seeks to waive privileged communications of Gentile,
Schneider, or the rights of certain others, he is required to “comply with the applicable law in the
exercise of such privileges or immunities.” GPB Cap. Holdings, 2023 WL 8468467, at *18
(citations omitted).
The Court accordingly finds Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital’s objections to
the Distribution Plan’s privilege provision are without merit and therefore declines to modify the
Distribution Plan with regard to the Receiver’s authority to exercise or waive privileges of the
Receivership Entities, Monitor, or Monitorship.
3. Advancement costs

Gentile and Schneider argue that the Distribution Plan is “unnecessarily ambiguous
regarding the approval of advancement and indemnification costs” in “violation of this Court’s
Order, the law of the case doctrine, []the orders of the Delaware Chancery Court, and the Full
Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution” as well as their Sixth Amendment
rights “with respect to their continuing criminal case. (Defs.’ Objs. 7–8, 11.) Specifically, they
note that the Distribution Plan provides the Receiver with the authority to, “in his sole
discretion,” determine distributions of Reserves, including “advancement costs.” (Id. at 11
(emphasis omitted).) They argue that the Distribution Plan “effectively end-run[s]” the
Receivership Order’s guarantee that it “would not impact [Gentile or Schneider’s]

[advancement] rights pursuant to the Delaware Orders,” and that the Receiver “is required to
comply with his legal obligations, including compliance of the existing orders of other courts.”
(Id. at 9–10, 11–12.) They argue that the Receiver has waived any challenges to the
Receivership Order because the Second Circuit affirmed it. (Id. at 10.) Gentile and Schneider
acknowledge that the Receiver is “currently taking the position that the [Distribution] Plan does
not address advancement or indemnification,” but seek explicit clarification from the Court that
the Distribution Plan does not impact their advancement rights. (Id. at 10–11.) They therefore
request that the Court amend the Distribution Plan by “requiring that the Receiver . . . ‘comply
with his legal obligations’ . . . with respect to advancement and indemnification costs” and
“requiring the Receiver to maintain a sufficient reserve to meet legal obligations including the
previously ordered advancement and indemnification obligations.” (Id. at 1–2, 18 (citation
omitted).)
The Receiver argues that the Distribution Plan does not “undermine the Objectors’ rights
to advancement and indemnification of defense costs.” (Receiver’s Reply 2.) The Receiver
explains that “[t]o the extent that the [Distribution] Plan has any bearing at all on advancement or

indemnification, it is simply to confirm that the Receiver will continue to authorize the
advancement of appropriate defense costs . . . subject to the right to recoup such costs.” (Id. at
14.) He also argues that Objectors’ advancement costs should not be Priority Claims. (Id. at 2.)
In support, he argues that Delaware law “expressly provides that advancement claims are not to
be treated as priority claims,” and that “the [Distribution] Plan already includes a substantial
reserve fund from which the Receiver may pay . . . claims for advancement and
indemnification.” (Id.) In addition, the Receiver explains that “nothing in this Court’s
Receivership Order, or in the Delaware” opinions or the Sixth Amendment “requires that
‘Advancement Costs’ be treated as ‘Priority Claims’ over claims of other unsecured creditors.”

(Id. at 12–13.) The Receiver also notes that GPB has approved and advanced nearly $75 million
to Gentile and Schneider for their litigation costs and Gentile and Schneider “should not have
‘Priority Claimant’ status over other unsecured creditors, especially when those creditors include
the very investors whom a jury has found, beyond a reasonable doubt, they defrauded.” (Id. at 7,
13.) The Receiver further argues that using his discretion to determine the amount of Reserves is
“entirely consistent with the Receivership Order,” and that the $719 million he plans to hold in
reserve for ongoing expenses, including advancement costs, renders “any suggestion by
[Objectors] that the reserves are not sufficient . . . meritless.”25 (Id. at 14.) In addition, the
Receiver argues that he does not object to the Receivership Order and thus did not have an
objection to “waive.” (Id. at 15.)
The Court is not persuaded that the Distribution Plan undermines Gentile‘s or
Schneider’s rights to advancement costs. In the Receivership Order, the Court explicitly stated

that it did not “pose any bar to Schneider’s and Gentile’s rights under their advancement orders,
since the [R]eceiver is required to comply with his legal obligations, including compliance of the
existing orders of other courts.” GPB Cap. Holdings, 2023 WL 8468467, at *16. The Court
further clarified that the Receivership Order did not “enjoin the reimbursement procedures
pursuant to which Schneider and Gentile submit invoices and requests for reimbursement under
their advance orders.” (Id. at *16 n.21.) The Receiver stated that “is in agreement with the terms
of the Receivership Order” including the provision “allowing for the Receiver to approve
advancement payments without further order from this Court.” (Receiver’s Reply 15.) The
Receiver has confirmed that he “will continue to authorize the advancement of appropriate

defense costs” for Gentile and Schneider, (id. at 14), and that he has “propose[d] to initially hold
$719 million in reserve to pay for ongoing expenses, including advancements costs,” (id.) There

25 The Receiver also argues that, to the extent that Gentile and Schneider believe the
Receivership Order requires that disputes about advancement must be litigated in Delaware,
“that belief is misguided” and that the Court should “exercise continuing jurisdiction over any
future litigated disputes between the Receiver and Gentile or Schneider concerning their claims
for advancement.” (Receiver’s Reply 17.) No Objector argued that disputes over advancement
costs should be litigated in Delaware, and the Court’s Order Appointing the Receiver clearly
stated that the Court retains “exclusive jurisdiction over any action filed against the Receiver . . .
based on acts or omissions committed in their representative capacities.” (Order Appointing
Receiver ¶ 37.) There is therefore no dispute that the Court retains jurisdiction to resolve any
disputes regarding either Gentile’s or Schneider’s advancement costs.
is therefore no dispute that the Receiver intends to and is required by the Receivership Order to
continue paying Gentile and Schneider’s advancement costs.26 (Id. at 15.)
The Court accordingly finds that Gentile and Schneider’s objections to the Distribution
Plan’s provisions regarding advancement costs are without merit.
4. Distributions to transferees

Osaic argues that the Distribution Plan is not “fair and equitable” because the Receiver
did not explicitly include parties that have received shares in the Funds via transfers or
assignments from other GPB investors (the “Transferees”) in the Initial or Subsequent
Distributions. (Osaic’s Objs. 2, 5.) Osaic owns five Broker-Dealers that were involved with
distributing shares of APLP and Holdings II. (Id. at 5.) Osaic argues that, “[a]s a direct result of
actions by the [Objectors],” Osaic has engaged in nearly one hundred FINRA arbitrations filed
by defrauded GPB investors. (Id.) In some of the FINRA settlements, the Broker-Dealers “were
obligated to and agreed to purchase the [GPB investors’] respective outstanding GPB Shares.”
(Id. at 5–6.) They currently hold APLP shares with a net capital contribution value of

$8,070,000 and Holdings II shares with a net capital contribution value of $5,406,000. (Id. at 6.)
Osaic informed then-Monitor of the transfer of the APLP shares to Osaic as early as May of
2022. (Id.) Osaic argues that they are “Investors” as defined in the Distribution Plan because
each of the Broker-Dealers “owns a 100% interest in Shares of either APLP or Holdings II
through the respective” share transfers resulting from FINRA arbitration settlements. (Id. at 8.)
Osaic thus argues that there is no reason that the Receiver should not include the Broker-Dealers

26 Because the Court concludes that the Distribution Plan does not impair, delay, or
otherwise affect Gentile’s and Schneider’s right to advancements costs, the Court need not
address their request that the Court “direct the Receiver to revise the [Distribution] Plan to
adequately protect Mr. Gentile and Mr. Schneider’s rights by classifying their Advancement
Costs as Priority Claims and expressly providing their entitlement thereto.” (Defs.’ Objs. 12.)
in the Initial Distribution of funds to APLP and Holdings II investors, (id. at 7), but the
Distribution Plan as proposed would exclude Osaic and Broker-Dealers from the Initial
Distribution because the Distribution Plan “does not take into account any assignment or transfer
. . . of the Shares,” (id. at 4). Osaic requests that the Court not approve the Distribution Plan
unless it (1) acknowledges the Share Transfers to Broker-Dealers; (2) provides for the right of

Broker-Dealers to participate in the Initial and Subsequent Distributions; and (3) confirm that the
payments Broker-Dealers made for the Share Transfers will not reduce the distribution to the
Broker-Dealers. (Id. at 5.)
The Receiver explains that he conferred with Osaic regarding their objections and that
there is no remaining dispute with Osaic regarding transferred or assigned shares of GPB.
(Receiver’s Reply 21.) The parties agreed to a procedure for Transferees that have been assigned
GPB shares from a GPB investor to work with the Receiver to identify their shares and receive
distributions as the Receiver deems appropriate, and to raise disputes about the ownership or
distribution of any assigned shares to the Court. (Id. at 21–22.)

The Court concludes that there is no dispute regarding Transferees’ ability to receive
Initial or Subsequent Distributions and accordingly finds Osaic’s objections to be moot.
iii. Relief from the litigation injunction
Axiom requests that the Court lift the litigation injunction and permit Axiom to pursue its
indemnification claims against the Funds in arbitration. (Axiom’s Mem. 15.) Axiom argues that
pursuing its claims in arbitration “will not substantially upset the [Distribution Plan] because the
Receiver set up reserves for this very purpose.” (Id.) They argue that they will “suffer a
substantial injury” if they cannot proceed to arbitration because the Distribution Plan “grants the
Receiver unchecked authority to avoid its obligations to Axiom.” (Id. at 16.) Axiom notes that
the Receiver “does not dispute that Axiom is owed indemnity,” and that they will be harmed by
submitting to the Distribution Plan’s claims process because it would force Axiom to “waive its
right to arbitration under the Dealer Agreements” and “share confidential information with the
Receiver that is protected under the Dealer Agreements.” (Axiom’s Reply 8–9.) They contend
that the Receiver’s “attempt to avoid the GPB Funds’ indemnity obligations through a summary
proceeding without notice is a repudiation of such obligations.” (Id. at 9.)

B9 requests that the Court clarify that the Receivership Order “does not stay, enjoin, or
otherwise impact” the New York State Action, or, in the alternative, requests that the Court lift
the litigation injunction and permit B9 to continue pursuing its New York State Action. (B9’s
Mem. 17.) First, B9 argues MTF Realty and Cold Storage II “are not among the entities within
the scope of the Receivership Order and are not subject to the litigation stay and related terms
governing the Receivership Entities.” (Id. at 11; B9’s Reply 2.) They note that neither MTF
Realty nor Cold Storage II are Receivership Entities, and the Order Appointing Receiver defines
“‘Receivership Entities’ to include only the twenty specifically enumerated entities” listed in the
Order Appointing Receiver. (B9’s Mem. 11.) B9 also argues that MTF Realty and Cold Storage

II are not “Receivership Assets,” and that “[n]o party to the [New York] State Action seeks to
obtain, attach, or otherwise litigate any assets owned by any Receivership Entity, so no
Receivership Assets are at issue, and no litigation stay or other requirement from this Court
applies to the [New York] State Action.” (Id. 12–16; see also B9’a Reply 2–4.) Second, B9
argues the Court should alternatively lift the litigation injunction. B9 argues that “a continued
stay will prejudice B9’s interests by leaving the [e]scrow [a]mount indefinitely in limbo” and
that the Receiver has no interest in the escrow amount. (B9’s Reply 9.) They argue a continued
stay “would not further any purposes of the Receivership” because the resolution of the New
York State Action would merely permit B9 to “obtain amounts presently held by the [e]scrow
[a]gent for B9’s benefit.” (B9’s Mem. 17–18.) According to B9, even if MTF Realty and Cold
Storage II prevail in the New York State Action and the Receiver “secure[s] or control[s] any
hypothetical released escrow amounts,” the Receiver “cannot presently confirm, obtain, or
distribute those amounts, which remain with the [e]scrow [a]gent and cannot be released while
the [New York] State Action is ongoing.” (Id. at 18–19.) Accordingly, B9 argues that
“[i]nterests in judicial economy therefore support allowing the [New York] State Action to go

forward.” (Id. at 19.) B9 also argues that the “potential burdens of litigation [on the Receiver]
alone” do not justify enjoining the New York State Action. (B9’s Reply 5.) In addition, B9
argues that staying the New York State Action would “exceed[] the Court’s authority” because
the New York State Action “involves no Receivership Entities or present assets of those
entities.” (B9’s Mem. 18.) B9 argues that courts have lifted injunctions at similar stages of
receivership estate administration, (B9’s Reply 9), and that B9 has established a colorable claim
to justify lifting the receivership stay by demonstrating a “clearly articulated right to the [e]scrow
[a]mount based on the occurrence of express contractual conditions,” (id.)
The Receiver argues that Axiom’s request that the Court allow Axiom to pursue its

indemnification claims are procedurally improper and unnecessary because the Distribution Plan
adequately addresses indemnification. (Receiver’s Reply 18–20.) He argues that Axiom’s
request is procedurally improper because they have not filed a motion for leave from the
litigation injunction as required by the Receivership Order. (Id. at 18.) The Receiver reiterates
that the Distribution Plan is “not intended to address procedures for . . . indemnification one way
or the other.” (Id. at 14.) The Receiver also argues that based on the preliminary information in
Axiom’s motion, “it is not apparent that its claim for indemnification is one that involves the
kind of urgency that would warrant lifting the litigation injunction at this early stage of the
Receivership.” (Id. at 19.)
The Receiver also opposes B9’s request that the Court confirm the New York State
Action is not subject to the litigation injunction and deny B9’s motion in the alternative for leave
from the injunction.27 (Receiver’s Opp’n.) First, the Receiver argues that the “broad sweep of
the Receivership Order” bars the New York State Action because it “threatens to remove assets
from the [R]eceivership [E]state to the potential detriment of all.” (Id. at 7 (quotation marks,
brackets, and citations omitted).) He notes that “the legal fees required to litigate the [New York

State] Action . . . will affect the amount of funds available for distribution” because the fees will
be paid from the Receivership Estate. (Id. at 5.) The “claims in the [New York State] Action are
contested by both sides” and the case “is in the early stages of discovery,” so there is “substantial
legal spend ahead that will all be drawn from the Receivership Estate.” (Id. at 2.) In addition,
the Receiver argues that “the facts surrounding the [New York State] Action, the defendants
named therein, and the parties’ course of dealing underline just how inextricably intertwined the
[New York State] Action is with the Receivership Estate.” (Id. at 5.) The Receiver notes that
Cold Storage II is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cold Storage and MTF Realty is a majority-
owned indirect subsidiary of Cold Storage, a Receivership Entity, (id. at 7), the Receiver

approved the sale of the New Jersey property when he was Monitor, (id. at 6), the CEO of GPB
Capital, Chmiel, signed the sale agreement after it was negotiated by a Receivership Entity, (id.),
and the proceeds from the sale of the New Jersey property were transferred to the Receivership
Estate, (id.). The Receiver also argues that litigating the New York State Action would “draw
the Receiver’s attention away from his primary goal of timely compensating investors” and

27 The Receiver requests that the Court either amend the Order Appointing Receiver to
“add the defendants in the [New York State] Action to the list of Receivership Entities” or add
the New York State Action to the non-exhaustive list of enjoined litigation involving the
Receivership Entities and Receivership Assets. (Receiver’s Opp’n 7.) B9 opposes the
Receiver’s proposed amendment to the Order Appointing Receiver. (B9’s Reply 7.) The Court
declines to amend the Receivership Order because it finds that the New York State Action is
subject to the litigation injunction as written and declines to lift the stay.
“disrupt the orderly distribution process set forth in the . . . Distribution Plan.” (Id. at 6, 8.)
Second, the Receiver argues that there is no basis to lift the litigation injunction so that the New
York State Action can proceed. (Id. at 8.) He argues that leaving the stay in place against the
New York State Action “would further the purpose of the Receivership by preserving investor
assets” and that “simply having to wait to seek compensation . . . is insufficient to justify lifting

the stay when doing so will upend the process of distributing assets to thousands of wronged
investors.” (Id. at 9.) In addition, the “Receiver is still administering and seeking to maximize
funds that may be available for distribution to investors,” and “[p]ermitting B9’s litigation to
proceed at this juncture would needlessly distract from the Receiver’s core mission.” (Id. at 10.)
The Receiver also notes that “all of the funds required to pay for . . . [the New York State
Action] will be drawn from the Receivership Estate.” (Id. at 11.)
In deciding whether to lift a litigation injunction imposed by a district court in
receivership proceedings, courts in the Second Circuit use the three-part test from Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Wencke. 742 F.2d 1230, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984); see United States v. Elk

Assocs. Funding Corp., No. 13-CV-1326, 2020 WL 6581948, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2020)
(“‘When analyzing a motion to lift a litigation stay imposed by a receivership court,’ courts in
this Circuit ‘utilize a three-part test articulated by the Ninth Circuit in . . . Wencke.’” (quoting
United States v. JHW Greentree Cap., L.P., No. 12-CV-116, 2014 WL 1669261, at *2 (D. Conn.
Feb. 10, 2014))). The Wencke test “requires the district court to balance the interests of the
Receiver and the moving party.” Greentree, 2014 WL 1669261, at *2 (citation omitted). The
court considers: “(1) whether refusing to lift the stay genuinely preserves the status quo or
whether the moving party will suffer substantial injury if not permitted to proceed; (2) the time in
the course of the receivership at which the motion for relief from the stay is made; and (3) the
merit of the moving party’s underlying claim.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Ahmed, No. 15-CV-
675, 2022 WL 7508962, at *2 (D. Conn. Oct. 13, 2022) (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v.
Illarramendi, No. 11-CV-78, 2012 WL 234016, at *4 (D. Conn. Jan. 25, 2012)); Callahan, 2 F.
Supp. 3d at 437 (quoting Wencke, 742 F.2d at 1231) (same); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Byers, 592
F. Supp. 2d 532, 536–37 (quoting Wencke, 742 F.2d at 1231) (same), aff’d, 609 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.
2010). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the Wencke factors weigh in favor

of lifting the stay. Callahan, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 437 (quoting Illarramendi, 2012 WL 234016, at
*4).
1. Axiom
Even assuming Axiom’s motion for leave is procedurally proper, the Court declines to lift
the litigation injunction for Axiom to pursue its indemnification claims in arbitration. First,
Axiom has not shown that it will suffer substantial injury as a result of the injunction. Axiom
argues that the Distribution Plan “grants the Receiver unchecked authority to avoid its
obligations to Axiom.” (Axiom’s Mem. 15.) However, the Receiver has explained that “[t]o the
extent that the [Distribution] Plan has any bearing at all on advancement or indemnification, it is

simply to confirm that the Receiver will continue to authorize the advancement of appropriate
defense costs” and that the Distribution Plan “expressly states that the Receiver is setting aside
reserves to address various expenses, including but not limited to reserves to pay for
‘indemnification and advancement costs.’” (Receiver’s Reply 14–15 (quoting Distribution Plan
17–18).) The Receiver is not attempting to “avoid the GPB Fund’s indemnity obligations,”
(Axiom’s Reply 9), but specifically acknowledges the likelihood of authorizing indemnification
costs in the future. Thus, the Receiver has not denied Axiom’s indemnification claim,
(Receiver’s Reply 20), and a mere delay in Axiom being indemnified is insufficient to satisfy the
substantial harm factor. Greentree, 2014 WL 16619261, at *4 (“Absent any specific indication
in the record that harm to the [m]ovants is substantial and constitutes more than simply a delay in
collecting on a monetary judgment, the [c]ourt cannot conclude that this factor favors the
[m]ovants.”). Second, the timing of Axiom’s motion weighs against lifting the injunction. The
litigation injunction has only been in place since December 3, 2024, when the Second Circuit
lifted its stay on the Court’s Receivership Order. GPB Cap. Holdings, 2024 WL 4945247, at *6.
Lifting a litigation stay after only a few months is disfavored “given the possible disruption of

the receiver’s duties.” Byers, 592 F. Supp. 2d at 537; Callahan, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 440 (explaining
that the second Wencke factor weighs against lifting the litigation injunction where it had “only
been in place for one year and five months” and, “[g]iven the complicated nature of th[e] case . .
. it d[id] not appear unreasonable to the [c]ourt that the [r]eceiver’s investigation [was] still
ongoing”). Third, the Court does not have sufficient information about the merits of Axiom’s
claim, but even if Axiom’s claim was strong, the first two Wencke factors weigh against lifting
the injunction. Elk Assocs., 2020 WL 6581948, at *5 (“However, even meritorious claims may
not tip the scales in favor of lifting a litigation stay where the first and second prongs of the
Wencke[] inquiry favor the receiver.” (quoting United States v. JHW Greentree Cap., L.P., No.

12-CV-116, 2014 WL 12756827, at *8 (D. Conn. May 16, 2014))). The Court therefore denies
Axiom’s motion for relief from the litigation injunction.
2. B9
The Court finds that B9 is subject to the litigation injunction and declines to lift the
litigation injunction so that the New York State Action may proceed. First, the Receiver has
demonstrated that MTF Realty and Cold Storage II are sufficiently intertwined with Receivership
Entities and the Receivership Estate to subject the New York State Action to the litigation
injunction. The Order Appointing the Receiver enjoined “civil legal proceedings of any nature”
involving “the Receivership Estate” or the “Receivership Entities or any Receivership Assets,
wherever located.” (Order Appointing Receiver ¶ 18.) As noted above, the Receiver approved
the sale of the New Jersey property, the sale was negotiated by a Receivership Entity, GPB’s
CEO executed the sale, and the profits from the sale were included in the Receivership Estate.
(Decl. of Joseph T. Gardemal III (“Gardemal B9 Decl.”) ¶¶ 4–8, annexed to Receiver’s Opp’n,
Docket Entry No. 267-1.) It is uncontested that MTF Realty and Cold Storage II are subsidiaries
of Cold Storage, a Receivership Entity.28 (Receiver’s Opp’n 5.) In addition, the “legal fees

borne by MTF Realty and [Cold Storage II]. . . have been and would be drawn from the
Receivership Estate.” (Gardemal B9 Decl ¶ 10.) The New York State Action therefore
“involves” the Receivership Estate, Receivership Entities, and Receivership Assets, and the New
York State Action is properly subject to the litigation injunction. Second, the Court declines to
lift the stay for the New York State Action to proceed. As discussed above, B9 will not suffer
substantial injury if the New York State Action is stayed. The disputed escrow amount will
remain frozen until the litigation injunction is lifted, and a delay in resolving which party is
entitled to the escrow amount is insufficient to demonstrate a substantial harm. Greentree, 2014
WL 1669261, at *4 (“Absent any specific indication in the record that harm to the [m]ovants is

substantial and constitutes more than simply a delay in collecting on a monetary judgment, the
[c]ourt cannot conclude that this factor favors the [m]ovants.”). The Court also finds that lifting
the stay would not preserve the status quo because it would distract the Receiver from
administering the Receivership Estate and drain the funds from which investors could recover.
Callahan, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 439–40 (explaining that leaving the stay in place maintained the status

28 B9 stated that they “lack[ed] knowledge” about whether “a Receivership Entity is a
direct or indirect member” of either MTF Realty or Cold Storage II. (B9’s Mem. 13.) The
Receiver explained that Cold Storage II is a “wholly owned subsidiary of GPB Cold Storage, LP,
a Receivership Entity” and MTF Realty “is a majority-owned (approximately 83%) indirect
subsidiary of GPB Cold Storage, LP, a Receivership Entity.” (Receiver’s Opp’n 5.) B9 did not
dispute or address Receiver’s characterization of MTF Realty and Cold Storage II’s ownership.
The Court will therefore assume for purposes of B9’s motion that it is uncontested that MTF
Realty and Cold Storage II are subsidiaries of Cold Storage.
quo because lifting it would permit the movant to recover funds “at the expense of . . . the
[i]nvestors”); Illarramendi, 2012 WL 5832330, at *2 (declining to lift an anti-litigation stay
because movant did not explain how their lawsuit “would not distract the [r]eceiver from his
duties of recovering assets for the [r]eceivership [e]state”). B9 mischaracterizes district court
decisions in arguing that the courts in Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. One Equity Corp., No. 08-CV-

667, 2010 WL 4878993 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 23, 2010), and United States v. JHW Greentree Cap.,
L.P., No. 12-CV-116, 2014 WL 12756827 (D. Conn. May 16, 2014), lifted litigation injunctions
“under very similar facts.” (B9’s Reply 9.) In One Equity Corp., the court granted the movant’s
second motion for leave from the receivership litigation injunction only after denying their first
motion for leave because the “receivership was in its early stages” and “the [r]eceiver needed
additional time to identify receivership assets and to investigate and resolve relevant issues
pertaining thereto.” 2010 WL 4878993, at *7. The district court denied the movant’s first
motion to lift the litigation injunction seven months into the receiver’s tenure. Id. at *1–2
(explaining that the court appointed receiver on July 17, 2008, and denied movant’s first request

to lift the litigation injunction on February 17 and 19, 2009). Similarly, in Greentree Capital, the
court lifted a litigation injunction for a receivership that had been in place for “more than twenty-
six months” and had reached its “midpoint” where the court was poised to “establish[] summary
disposition proceedings.” 2014 WL 12756827, at *7. In this case, the Receivership and
litigation injunction have only been in place since December 3, 2024. The Receiver is still
working “to organize, understand, and marshal the entities under its control,” id., and the timing
of B9’s motion weighs against lifting the injunction. Callahan, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 440 (explaining
that the second Wencke factor weighs against lifting the litigation injunction where it had “only
been in place for one year and five months” and, “[g]iven the complicated nature of th[e] case
. . . it d[id] not appear unreasonable to the [c]ourt that the [r]eceiver’s investigation [was] still
ongoing”); Illarramendi, 2012 WL 234016, at *6 (explaining that the second Wencke factor
weighed against lifting the litigation stay where the receivership “had been in place for about six
months” and therefore the receiver’s need “to organize and understand the financial transactions
among all the [r]eceivership entities, as well as assess the claims filed” outweighed the movant’s
“need to proceed with its claims”); Byers, 592 F. Supp. 2d at 537 (concluding that the timing

factor weighed against lifting the litigation injunction where receiver had “only just begun to
investigate the full extent of the fraudulent scheme”). The Court therefore denies B9’s motion for
relief from the litigation injunction. Callahan, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 440 (explaining that the court
need not “explore the merits of [movant’s] underlying claim” because “the first two of the
Wencke factors weight heavily against modifying” the anti-litigation injunction (citing Byers,
592 F. Supp. 2d at 537)).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court: (1) grants the Receiver’s motion for disbursement
of funds; (2) finds Osaic’s objections to be moot; (3) denies B9’s motion to intervene, request for

clarification, and motion for relief from the litigation injunction; (4) denies Axiom’s motion to
intervene and motion for relief from the litigation injunction, and finds Axiom’s objections are
without merit; (5) finds Gentile, Schneider, and Ascendant Capital’s objections to be without
merit; and (6) denies DJ Partners’ motion to intervene and finds Ascendant Strategies and DJ
Partners’ objections are without merit.
The Court authorizes the Receiver to commence distributions as set forth in the
Distribution Plan at any time after the entry of this Memorandum and Order. The Court shall
retain jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising from the implementation of this
Order, as well as other matters for which this Court retains jurisdiction as specified in the
Receivership Order and the Distribution Plan.
Dated: April 8, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
SO ORDERED:

____s/ MKB _ ______
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10841409. Public record. Not legal advice.