BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...

10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document
Pg 125 of 133
b. Litigation in Luxembourg Would Cause Inefficiency and
Unnecessary Delay
Having this case heard by a Luxembourg court would thwart the expeditious resolution of
the Trustee’s claims and delay the recovery and distribution of money to victims of Madoff’s
scam. Bankruptcy courts have consistently acknowledged the adverse effect that a dismissal
would have on the administration of the estate. See, e.g., Sherwood Inv. Ltd., Inc. v. Royal Bank
of Scotland N.V. (In re Sherwood Invs. Overseas Ltd., Inc.), 442 B.R. 834, 837 (Bankr. M.D. Fla.
2010) (“The Court also cannot ignore the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings and the presumption
that this adversary proceeding should be kept tied to those proceedings for ease of administration
for the estate.”); I.E. Liquidation, Inc. v. Litostroj Hydro, Inc. (In re I.E. Liquidation, Inc.),
Bankr. No. 06-62179, 2009 WL 1586706, at *14 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009) (“The litigants in this
proceeding are not the only parties in interest . . . . The bulk of the estate’s assets sit in a
liquidating trust awaiting distribution to multitudinous other creditors. It is in the best interests
of the estate that this litigation be concluded within a reasonable time.”); Estate of Sapper v.
Seatrain Lines, Inc. (In re Seatrain Lines, Inc.), 32 B.R. 669, 672 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983) (“As
far as the other practical problems that makes trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive,
this court is persuaded that to try this counterclaim in Guatemala when all other proceedings
involving this debtor are taking place in this court would engender inordinate and unwarranted
complexity, time and cost.” (internal quotations omitted)). Luxalpha ignores this proceeding’s
connection to numerous other actions in this district, the need for ease of administration of the
estate, and the delay in collecting fictitious profits and paying claims that would occur if this
case were litigated in Luxembourg. Luxalpha has failed to show that “all other factors that might
make the trial quicker or less expensive” favor dismissal.
105