Common use of Entry of This Order Clause in Contracts

Entry of This Order. This Scheduling Order shall be entered separately on the dockets both in the SEC Action and in the Receiver Litigation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on , 0000 XXXXX X. XXXXXX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Publication Notice To be published once in the national edition of The Wall Street Journal and once in the international edition of The New York Times: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Court-appointed Receiver for Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (“SIB”), and certain Plaintiffs, have reached an agreement to settle all claims asserted or that could have been asserted against Xxxxxxxxxx & Xxxxx LLP relating to or in any way concerning SIB (the “Settlement Agreement”). As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Receiver and Plaintiffs have requested orders that permanently enjoin, among others, all Interested Parties, including Stanford Investors (i.e., customers of SIB, who, as of February 16, 2009, had funds on deposit at SIB and/or were holding certificates of deposit issued by SIB), from bringing any legal proceeding or cause of action arising from or relating to the Stanford Entities against the Xxxxxxxxxx Released Parties. Complete copies of the Settlement Agreement, the proposed bar orders, and settlement documents are available on the Receiver’s website xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx. All capitalized terms not defined in this Notice are defined in the Settlement Agreement. Interested Parties may file written objections with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on or before [insert date of 21st day before Final Approval Hearing].

Entry of This Order. This Scheduling Order shall be entered separately on the dockets both in the SEC Action and in the Receiver Committee Litigation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on , 0000 XXXXX X. XXXXXX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Publication Notice To be published once in the national edition of The Wall Street Journal and once in the international edition of The New York Times: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Court-appointed Receiver for Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (“SIBSIBL”), and certain Plaintiffs, have reached an agreement to settle all claims asserted or that could have been asserted against Xxxxxxxxxx & Xxxxx BDO USA, LLP (“BDO USA”) and several other BDO entities relating to or in any way concerning SIB (the “Settlement Agreement”)SIBL. As part of the Settlement AgreementBDO Settlement, the Receiver and Plaintiffs have requested orders that which permanently enjoin, among others, enjoin all Interested Parties, including Stanford Investors (i.e., i.e. customers of SIBSIBL, who, as of February 16, 2009, had funds on deposit at SIB SIBL and/or were holding certificates of deposit issued by SIBSIBL), from bringing any legal proceeding or cause of action arising from or relating to the Stanford Entities against the Xxxxxxxxxx BDO Released Parties. Complete copies of the BDO Settlement Agreement, the proposed bar orders, and other settlement documents are available on the Receiver’s website xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx. All capitalized terms not defined in this Notice are defined in the Settlement Agreement. Interested Parties may file written objections with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on or before [insert date of 21st day before Final Approval Hearing].

Entry of This Order. This Scheduling Order shall be entered separately on the dockets both docket in the SEC Action Action. The Committee shall cause a notice of the Scheduling Order to be entered on the docket of the Rotstain Litigation and in the Receiver Xxxxx Litigation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on , 0000 2023 XXXXX X. XXXXXX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Publication Notice To be published once in the national edition of The Wall Street Journal and once in the international edition of The New York Times: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Court-appointed Receiver for Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (“SIBSIBL”) and related entities (“Stanford Entities”), and certain Plaintiffs, have reached an agreement to settle all claims asserted or that could have been asserted against Xxxxxxxxxx & Xxxxx LLP Société Générale Private Banking (Suisse), S.A. and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx relating to or in any way concerning SIB SIBL (the “Settlement Agreement”). As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Receiver and Plaintiffs have requested orders an order that permanently enjoinenjoins, among others, all Interested Parties, including Stanford Investors (i.e., customers of SIBSIBL, who, as of February 16, 2009, had funds on deposit at SIB SIBL and/or were holding certificates of deposit issued by SIBSIBL), and all other Persons from bringing any legal proceeding or cause of action arising from or relating to the Stanford Entities against Société Générale Private Banking (Suisse), S.A., Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, or the Xxxxxxxxxx SG Released Parties. Complete copies of the Settlement Agreement, the proposed bar ordersBar Order, and settlement documents are available on the Receiver’s website xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx. All capitalized terms not defined in this Notice are defined in the Settlement Agreement. Interested Parties may file written objections with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on or before [insert date of 21st day before Final Approval Hearing]. Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 1 of 12 PageID 2835 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 2 of 12 PageID 2836 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 3 of 12 PageID 2837 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 4 of 12 PageID 2838 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 5 of 12 PageID 2839 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 6 of 12 PageID 2840 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 7 of 12 PageID 2841 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 8 of 12 PageID 2842 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 9 of 12 PageID 2843 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 10 of 12 PageID 2844 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 11 of 12 PageID 2845 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 157 Filed 03/12/09 Page 12 of 12 PageID 2846 SG DEFENDANTS SETTLEMENT EXHIBIT F Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1130 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 15 PageID 24055 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE § COMMISSION, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-298-N § STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, § LTD., et al., § § Defendant. § SECOND AMENDED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER This Order addresses the S.E.C. and the Receiver’s joint motion for entry of a second amended order appointing receiver [958]. On February 17, 2009 this Court entered its order appointing receiver [10]. On March 12, 2009 this Court entered its amended order appointing receiver [157]. The Receiver’s stated main purpose for seeking reentry of the order is to allow him to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 754,1 which provides that a “receiver shall, 1The Receiver initially also proposed several substantive changes to the receivership order. Various parties objected to the Receiver’s motion [986, 992, 995, 996, 1001, 1002]. In his reply, the Receiver abandoned all of his requested changes and simply asked the Court to reenter the order for Section 754 purposes. Accordingly, the Court overrules as moot all of the objections to the Receiver’s proposed changes. This second amended receivership order is identical to the first amended order, with several minor exceptions (removal of a provision that expired after 180 days, a clarification that the Receiver may not file for bankruptcy on behalf of individual defendants, and deletion of the term “relief defendant”). The Court entered the first amended order [157] more than one year ago. Accordingly, the Court finds that any objections to the substantive content of this order (other than objections to the proposed ― now abandoned ― revisions) have been Case 3:09-cv-00298-N Document 1130 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 15 PageID 24056 within ten days after the entry of his order of appointment, file copies of the complaint and such order of appointment in the district court for each district in which property is located.” The Receiver has informed the Court that after the expiration of 10 days from the dates of the original receivership orders, he identified receivership assets and receivership records in districts in which copies of the complaint and amended order appointing receiver have not been filed. So that the Court may obtain jurisdiction in these districts, the Court now enters this second amended order appointing receiver.2

Entry of This Order. This Scheduling Order shall be entered separately on the dockets both in the SEC Action and in the Receiver Xxxxxxx Litigation. The Committee and the plaintiffs in the Xxxxx Litigation shall cause a notice of the Scheduling Order to be entered on the docket of the Rotstain Litigation and the Xxxxx Litigation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on , 0000 XXXXX X. XXXXXX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Publication Notice To be published once in the national edition of The Wall Street Journal and once in the international edition of The New York Times: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Court-appointed Receiver for Stanford International Bank, Ltd. (“SIB”) and related entities (“Stanford Entities”), and certain Plaintiffs, have reached an agreement to settle all claims asserted or that could have been asserted against Xxxxxxxxxx & Xxxxx LLP Trustmark National Bank relating to or in any way concerning SIB (the “Settlement Agreement”). As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Receiver and Plaintiffs have requested orders that permanently enjoin, among others, all Interested Parties, including Stanford Investors (i.e., customers of SIB, who, as of February 16, 2009, had funds on deposit at SIB and/or were holding certificates of deposit issued by SIB), and all other Persons from bringing any legal proceeding or cause of action arising from or relating to the Stanford Entities against Trustmark National Bank or the Xxxxxxxxxx Trustmark Released Parties. Complete copies of the Settlement Agreement, the proposed bar orders, and settlement documents are available on the Receiver’s website xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx. All capitalized terms not defined in this Notice are defined in the Settlement Agreement. Interested Parties may file written objections with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on or before [insert date of 21st day before Final Approval Hearing].. Trustmark Settlement Exhibit F EXHIBIT G