Here are the high point of this filing, I have skipped around. Mr. Bell makes some valid points. The complete filing is on the Files website, ZeekDoc202.
In an effort to create the most appropriate claim payment process, the Receiver decided that it would be best to pay claimants and not third parties on claimants’ behalf. This Court has already approved this decision. Unfortunately, unable to let go of their own pecuniary interests, Movants’ attorneys are yet again challenging the Court’s decision by seeking to change the approved distribution process to require the Receiver to aid the Movants’ attorneys in collecting their attorneys’ fees from the Movants. The Receiver has not and should not be required to interject himself into the relationship between the Movants and their attorneys, and it is situations such as these that the Receiver wishes to avoid by making distributions solely to claimants. For the reasons set forth herein, the Receiver respectfully requests that this Court deny the Motion and permit the Receiver to pay distributions to claimants only. To the extent that there is any so-called “clarification” necessary, the Receiver asks that this Court find that the Receiver be authorized to make distributions solely to claimants and not to third parties.
A motion for reconsideration should be treated as a motion pursuant to Rule 59 or 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60. In the Motion, however, the Movants fail to allege any of the necessary grounds to permit reconsideration of the Order. As such, there is no basis to reconsider the Order, and the Motion may be denied on that basis alone.
The Receiver has stated and continues to maintain that where a law firm’s address is listed as the recipient to receive a claimant’s distribution, the Receiver will not issue the distribution check until the claimant amends its address on the Claim Portal to provide the actual claimant’s address for payment. Until the amendment of a claimant’s address is made, no distribution will be made to such claimant.
Moreover, the Receiver does not wish to become embroiled in the midst of a potential debtor-creditor dispute such as the one between the Movants and their counsel. The Receiver, therefore, previously determined and has repeatedly stated that a claimant’s actual address is the only address to which he will send a distribution check, absent a judicial or regulatory body requiring payment to an alternative address.
The assertion that the Receiver is punishing claimants for having counsel is wrong. Claimants are receiving equal treatment regardless of whether they have counsel or represent themselves. Distributions will be sent directly to claimants—which is, in fact, equal treatment of all claimants. Requiring for all the legitimate purposes discussed above that a distribution be paid to a claimant and not a third party is not punishment for retaining an attorney. It may not assist Movants’ attorneys’ efforts to collect their fees (and it ought not to be the responsibility of the Receiver to act as the Movants’ attorneys’ collection agent), but it does not in any way punish their clients to treat them in the same way as other claimants.
Accordingly, no clarification of the Order is necessary, as no ambiguity exists regarding where distributions will be sent.