... that the portion of the sold partnership interest attributable to inventory items must be separately ‘considered.’” (JA353–54.) The court acknowledged Rawat’s argument that Sections 741 and 751 are not “sourcing rules,” but nonetheless ...

None of these arguments is persuasive.

... Loans Receivable 7,000 Capital Assets Unrealized Receivables 0 Total 20,000 Liabilities Capital: A B Total Liabilities and Capital Adjusted per books Fair market value $2,000 $2,000 9,000 15,000 9,000 15,000 20,000 32,000 (B) None ...

In changing the character (and tax rate) from capital to ordinary, section 751(a) does not and cannot create taxable U.S. source income where there otherwise is none.

But Mrs. Rawat cited legislative history only for context, not to resolve an ambiguity in the statute, because there is none.

) Nonetheless, the Commissioner quotes the court’s recitation of legislative history,13 though Woolsey (like Ware) has no holding about the nature of the partnership interest itself nor the income as capital gains arising out of the ...

None of the above cases hold that section 751 effects a sale of inventory (or unrealized receivables) to which section 865(b) would apply. None of these cases offer a holding on sourcing.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat pursuant to Rule 1.4 of the Local Rules for the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, I, Brant Kuehn, a former partner with the law firm of Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP,attorneys for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action, hereby withdraw asan attorney of record, as I have

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Brant Kuehn as counsel for Plaintiff City of Philadelphia and terminate ECF No. 515.

) The court acknowledged Rawat’s argument that Sections 741 and 751 are not “sourcing rules,” but nonetheless rejected her attempt to confine § 751 to a determination of the character of gain while relying on § 741 for broader purposes.

None of these arguments is persuasive.

... Loans Receivable 7,000 Capital Assets Unrealized Receivables 0 Total 20,000 Liabilities Capital: A B Total Liabilities and Capital Adjusted per books Fair market value $2,000 $2,000 9,000 15,000 9,000 15,000 20,000 32,000 (B) None ...

If all or any portion of a fine or restitution ordered remains unpaid after the termination of supervision, the defendant must pay the balance as directed by the United States Attorney’s Office.

The defendant must notify the Court (through the Probation Office) and the United States Attorney of any material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay a fine or restitution, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k).

As directed by the Probation Officer, the defendant must provide to theProbation Officer: (1) a signed release authorizing credit report inquiries; (2) federal and state income tax returns or a signed release authorizing their disclosure and (3) an accurate financial statement, with supporting documentation as to all assets, income and expenses of the defendant.

The defendant must not transfer, sell, give away, or otherwise convey any asset with a fair market value in excess of $500 without approval of the Probation Officer until all financial obligations imposed by the Court have been satisfied in full.

hereby attest and certify this date that the foregoing document is a full, true and correct copy of the original on file in my office, and in my legal custody.

The defendantshall not be employed in any position that requires licensing and/or certification by any local, state, or federal agency withoutthe prior written approval of the Probation Officer.

The defendant shall be held jointly and severally liable with co-participants, Irina Sadovsky, Yigal Keren and Mikhail Khanukhov (Docket No. 18CR00375-AB) for the amount of restitution ordered in this judgment.

The drug testing condition mandated by statute is suspended based on the Court's determination that the defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse.

The defendant must notify the Court (through the Probation Office) and the United States Attorney of any material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay a fine or restitution, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k).

The defendant must not transfer, sell, give away, or otherwise convey any asset with a fair market value in excess of $500 without approval of the Probation Officer until all financial obligations imposed by the Court have been satisfied in full.

In changing the character (and tax rate) from capital to ordinary, section 751(a) does not and cannot create taxable U.S. source income where there otherwise is none.

April 3, 2024 Via ECF Honorable Jesse Furman United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Centre Street, Room 2202 New York, New York 10007 Re: City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of Am. Corp., et al., 19-cv-1608 (JMF) Dear Judge Furman: Pursuant to the Court’s October 21, 2023 Order Approving Form and Manner of Class Notice (Dkt. 466), and the Court’s December 7, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Letter Request to Extend the Notice Date (Dkt. 488), Lead Counsel for Class Plaintiffs submit this letter to update the Court that the following potential Class members have requested exclusion from the Class: • California Attorney General; • County of Gaines, Texas; and • Washington County Water Conservancy District (St. George, Utah).

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: As stated on the record during the teleconference held earlier today, Defendants’ request for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED, except as it relates to the class notice and opt out process, which will be allowed to run its course.

In light of the stay, the status conference scheduled for July 11, 2024 is ADJOURNED sine die.

Dated: February 15, 2024 New York, New York

United States District Judge Plaintiffs, Defendants.

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: At the telephone conference tomorrow, counsel should be prepared to address whether the question of a stay pending a decision by the Second Circuit is all or nothing — that is, whether a partial stay (for example, permitting the class notice and opt out process to run its course and/or allowing “discovery on that portion of the case that would likely survive any decision of the [Second] Circuit,” Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., No. 02-10277-BC, 2006 WL 1722207, at *6 (E.D.

Mich. Jan. 20, 2006)) would be feasible and appropriate.

In the meantime, the deadline for Plaintiffs’ forthcoming merits expert reports is extended, on consent, until two weeks after the Court rules on Defendants’ request for a stay.

Dated: February 14, 2024 New York, New York

United States District Judge

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On February 5, 2024, the Court of Appeals entered an Order granting Defendants’ petition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), for leave to appeal this Court’s Order granting class certification.

The Court will hold a telephone conference on February 15, 2024, at 3:15 p.m., to discuss the implications of the Circuit’s Order with respect to the management of this case, including any upcoming deadlines, and settlement, including whether there is anything the Court can do to facilitate settlement.

Counsel shall confer and submit a joint letter addressing these issues on ECF no later than February 12, 2024.

Counsel should review and comply with the rules regarding teleconferences in the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, including Rule 3(B)(i), which requires the parties, no later than 24 hours before the conference, to send a joint email to the Court with the names and honorifics (e.g., Mr., Ms., Dr., etc.) of counsel who may speak during the teleconference and the telephone numbers from which counsel expect to join the call.

After receiving that email, the Court will provide the parties with the call-in information for counsel with speaking roles.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 5th day of February, two thousand twenty-four.

Petitioners request, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), leave to appeal the district court’s order granting class certification.

Upon due consideration of arguments presented both written and orally, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to file under seal; the motion for leave to file a reply; and the Rule 23(f) petition are GRANTED.

* We grant leave to file under seal based primarily on the fact that the confidential parts of the appendix are already covered by the district court’s protective order and the understanding that any request for access to that confidential information should be made in the underlying proceeding rather than in this auxiliary proceeding.

Thus, the present decision should not be considered controlling on that issue in the underlying proceeding.

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ position, courts that have addressed the issue have held that only an affirmative waiver, not a mere failure to respond to a class notice, can strip state entities of sovereign immunity.

Mich. Apr. 30, 2015) (dismissing class allegations on behalf of state entities on sovereign immunity grounds for the reasons set forth in Walker); In re Flonase Antitrust Litig., C.A.

Both the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have repeatedly held that “the fundamental principle of sovereign immunity limits the grant of judicial authority in Art.

v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98 (1984); see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 64 (1996) (“[T]he Eleventh Amendment reflects ‘the fundamental principle of sovereign immunity that limits the grant of judicial authority in Art.

The Second Circuit has “never held that a significant intervening event is necessary” to move to modify a class definition, “and such a requirement does not exist in the text of Rule 23.” Jin v. Shanghai Original, Inc., 990 F.3d 251, 262 (2d Cir. 2021).