{Converted to html. The PDF is the controlling document. JM}
Hartman & Hartman
(775) 324-2800
Jeffrey L. Hartman, Esq., #1607
HARTMAN & HARTMAN
Telephone: (775) 324-2800
Fax: (775) 324-1818
E-mail: notices@bankruptcyreno.com
Attorney for Patrick Canet,
Judicial Liquidator and Foreign Representative
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
IN RE: CASE NO. BK-N-16-50644-BTB
CHAPTER 15
Adv. Proc. No. 17-05016-BTB
RESPONSE OF PATRICK
CANET TO DEFENDANT JED MARGOLIN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN,
Debtor.
FRED SADRI, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST, DATED APRIL14, 1997; RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, AS MANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JED MARGOLIN; JAZI GHOLALREZA ZANDIAN; and all other parties claiming an interest in the real properties described in this action,
Defendants.
________________________________
PATRICK CANET,
Counterclaimant,
v.
FRED SADRI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ASTRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST; RAY KOROGHLI, INDIVIDUALLY, RAY KOROGHLIAND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, AS MANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,
Counter-defendants.
________________________________
PATRICK CANET,
Cross-Claimant,
v.
JED MARGOLIN,
Cross-Defendant.
PROPOUNDING PARTY: JED
MARGOLIN
RESPONDING PARTY:
PATRICK CANET
Defendant / Cross Claimant Patrick Canet, Liquidator in the FRENCH ACTION (“CANET”), against Jazi Gholamrezreza Zandian ("ZANDIAN"), pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7036, hereby responds to JED MARGOLIN’S First Set of Request for Admissions as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In response to these Requests for Admission, you have been furnished with such information as is presently available. This may include hearsay and other forms of evidence which are neither reliable nor admissible into evidence. CANET has not completed his investigation of all facts of this case, nor discovery in this matter, and has not completed his preparation for trial. Accordingly, the following responses are provided without prejudice to CANET’S right to introduce at trial any evidence that is subsequently discovered relating to proof of presently-known facts and to produce and introduce all evidence, whenever discovered, relating to the proof of subsequently-discovered material facts. Moreover, facts, documents and things, now known, may be imperfectly understood. Accordingly, such facts, documents and
things, may not be included in the following responses.
CANET reserves the right to refer to, conduct discovery with reference to, or offer into evidence at the time of trial any and all facts, documents, and things which it does not presently recall but may recall at some time in the near future, notwithstanding the initial responses provide therein. CANET further reserves the right to raise all appropriate objections with reference to the admissibility of any response or document at the time of trial, even though it may not be specifically objected to in these responses during discovery.
CANET objects to MARGOLIN’S requests insofar as they seek information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege(s). To the extent that CANET inadvertently discloses information that is protected under any applicable privilege, such inadvertent disclosure does not constitute a waiver of such privilege.
-2-
CANET further objects to MARGOLIN’S requests insofar as they seek documents concerning matters unrelated to the subject matter of the lawsuit, on the grounds that such requests are over broad, unduly burdensome, and seek information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
These general objections are applicable to each and every one of the following responses and objections, and failure to repeat an objection in response to a specific request shall not be deemed a waiver of the objection. Further, when CANET specifically repeats one or more of these general objections, it is not intended to exclude these other objections.
CANET also generally objects to the Requests for Admission to the extent that they are compound, vague, ambiguous, confusing, unclear and argumentative and can therefore be subject to different meanings. CANET further objects to the extent that the Requests for Admission do not comply with the Rules relating to Requests for Admission in that they do not request admission of a distinct, relevant fact.
Notwithstanding these objections, CANET responds to these Requests in accordance with his best understanding of the meaning of the Requests for Admission and does not waive any objection by responding.
REQUEST NO. 1: Admit that Bank Melli of Iran is a creditor in the FRENCH ACTION that is the basis of your Chapter 15 Petition.
RESPONSE: Deny. In the FRENCH ACTION, creditors, to be recognized as such, must file a declaration under Sections L.622-24, 622-25, 624-1 to 624-4, R.622-21 to R.622-26 and R. 624-1 to 624-011 of the French Commercial Code, and second, must be admitted to participate in the liquidation by a judge. Bank Melli is not a creditors of Zandian; it did not file a declaration, nor was it admitted. CANET would not be permitted to pay anything to Bank Melli under L.622-7.
-3-
REQUEST
NO. 2: Admit
that Bank Melli’s claim in the FRENCH ACTION that is
the basis of your Chapter 15 Petition has been approved by the
RESPONSE: Deny. As noted, in the FRENCH ACTION, creditors, to be recognized as such, must file a declaration under Sections L.622-24, 622-25, 624-1 to 624-4, R.622-21 to R.622-26 and R. 624-1 to 624-011 0f the Commercial Code, and second must be admitted to participate in the liquidation by a judge. Bank Melli is not a creditors of Zandian; it did not file a declaration, nor was it admitted. CANET would not be permitted to pay anything to Bank Melli under L.622-7.
REQUEST NO. 3: Admit that in the FRENCH ACTION that is the basis of your Chapter 15 Petition you have already collected at least 150,000 Euros from ZANDIAN.
RESPONSE:
Admit.
During the liquidation proceeding, CANET does not collect only money from
ZANDIAN, but sells property and collects proceeds from the sale of the
liquidated property. ZANDIAN previously deposited 300,000 Euros with CARPA in
connection with a proposed transaction with Lloyd’s Bank. When the
REQUEST
NO. 4: Admit
that from the date the FRENCH ACTION that is the basis of your Chapter 15
Petition was approved by the
RESPONSE: Admit. Prior to March
2016, CANET was unaware of Zandian’s activities in
-4 -
REQUEST
NO. 5: Admit that from the date the FRENCH ACTION that is the basis
of your Chapter 15 Petition was approved by the
RESPONSE: Admit. Prior to March
2016, Mr. CANET was unaware of Zandian’s activities
in
REQUEST NO. 6: Admit that you failed to
record your Judgment in the FRENCH ACTION against ZANDIAN in any of
RESPONSE: Admit. Prior to March
2016, Mr. Canet was unaware of Zandian’s
activities in
REQUEST NO. 7:
Admit that MARGOLIN bought the following properties at public auction more than a year before you filed your Chapter 15 Petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court:
Clark
Clark
Washoe
Washoe
Washoe
Washoe
RESPONSE: Admit that MARGOLIN asserts that he acquired these properties more than one year prior to the Chapter 15 Petition; however, Mr. Canet had no knowledge of the asserted purchases prior to March 2016.
-5-
REQUEST NO. 8:
Admit that you filed your Chapter 15 Petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court as a result of being contacted by ZANDIAN on or before 2016.
RESPONSE: Admit.
REQUEST NO. 9: Admit that you have an agreement (either formal or informal, written or oral) with ZANDIAN such that ZANDIAN (or his designee or designees) will receive financial compensation if your Chapter 13 [sic] Petition is successful.
RESPONSE: Deny that any such agreement exists with ZANDIAN or his designee(s). Only after all allowed creditor claims are paid in the FRENCH ACTION would ZANDIAN be entitled to any residual.
REQUEST NO. 10: Admit that at the September 6, 2016 hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court your counsel promised the Court that if your Chapter 15 Petition were granted, then under Section 1511 your counsel would commence either an involuntary proceeding against ZANDIAN under Section 303; or if he were to consent to being a debtor under Chapter 7, then your counsel would proceed under Section 301.
RESPONSE: Admit. CANET relied on counsel with respect to the chapter 15 Petition.
REQUEST NO. 11: Admit that it has been more than 12 months since your counsel has made the above promise to the Court and your counsel has failed to commence either of the above actions.
RESPONSE: Admit. CANET relied on counsel with respect to the chapter 15 Petition.
-6-
REQUEST NO. 12: Admit that your counsel also represents ZANDIAN in your Chapter 15 Petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
RESPONSE: Deny. ZANDIAN, at CANET’S authorization, has been directed to cooperate, to the extent possible, with CANET’S counsel.
REQUEST NO. 13: Admit that you are not
named as a Defendant in this adversary proceeding.
RESPONSE: Admit. CANET holds any claims owned by ZANDIAN and is the real party in interest in the stead of ZANDIAN.
REQUEST NO. 14: Admit that ZANDIAN is insolvent.
RESPONSE: Admit. The FRENCH ACTION includes a determination that ZANDIAN is insolvent. Under French law, ZANDIAN meets the conditions under L 640-1 of the Commercial Code.
REQUEST NO. 15: Admit that ZANDIAN is solvent.
RESPONSE: Deny.
REQUEST NO. 16: Admit that you have presented no evidence that ZANDIAN is or was insolvent.
RESPONSE: Deny. Docket entry 18-1, in the main case, is the Certificate Regarding Insolvency Proceedings concerning ZANDIAN issued July 6, 2016 by the Clerk’s Office of the Pontoise Commercial Court, which Certificate references the April 1998 Judgment against ZANDIAN.
-7-
REQUEST
NO. 17: Admit that ZANDIAN’s debt to Bank Melli was
incurred for the purpose of ZANDIAN’s purchase of an
IBM computer that he attempted to export from the
RESPONSE: Deny.
CANET has no knowledge of any indebtedness owed by ZANDIAN to Bank Melli. CANET believes that the claim by the
ZANDIAN, i.e., conspiracy to export controlled commodities, false statements and wire fraud, asserted in 1993 in USA v, Reger, et al., including ZANDIAN, case no. 2:93-cr-00055-ER-1, was dismissed on July 8, 1993 by United States District Court Judge Edward Rafeedie.
REQUEST NO. 18: Admit that you have knowledge under Executive
Order 13599 Bank Melli is considered to be the same
entity as the government of
RESPONSE: Deny. CANET has no knowledge of Executive Order 13599. As stated, Bank Melli has no claim in the FRENCH ACTION.
REQUEST NO. 19: Admit that you have knowledge that it is a criminal act under 31 CFR § 560 and Executive Order 13599 to pay money to the Government of Iran.
RESPONSE: Deny. CANET has no knowledge of the operation of 31 CFR § 560; further, as stated, Bank Melli has no claim in the FRENCH ACTION and CANET has no obligation or intention to pay Bank Melli anything.
REQUEST NO. 20: Admit that you have produced all documents and things pursuant to Defendant Jed Margolin’s First Set of Requests for Production to Patrick Canet.
RESPONSE: Admit as limited by responses to Requests For Production.
-8-
REQUEST NO. 21: Admit that all documents and things you have produced to Defendant Jed Margolin’s First Set of Requests for Production to Patrick Canet are authentic.
RESPONSE: Admit as limited by responses to Requests For Production
DATED: March 6, 2018.
HARTMAN & HARTMAN
/S/ Jeffrey L. Hartman
Jeffrey L. Hartman, Esq.
Attorney for Patrick Canet,
Foreign Representative
-9-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I am an employee of Hartman & Hartman, and that on March 6, 2018, I caused to be served the foregoing document by the following means to the persons as listed below:
U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, to
Matthew D. Francis, Esq.
Arthur Z. Zorio
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq.
Yanxiong Li, Esq.
Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP
7785
W.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: March 6, 2018.
/S/ Stephanie Ittner
Stephanie Ittner
-10-