Seventh Circuit Warns Intervenors Not to Sleep on Their Rights

13 October 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

Vigilantibus non dormientibus, æquitas subvenit.

* * * * *

It’s an ancient principle of equity, drawn from Roman law: Equity relieves the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. And it sums up quite well the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in SEC v. First Choice Management Services, Nos. 14-1270 & 14-2284 (Sept. 11, 2014)First Choice did not involve equity (or even cite the maxim); it concerned an untimely motion to intervene. But the principle was the same, and it’s a good lesson for potential intervenors.

The court, in an opinion written by Judge Posner, affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to intervene as untimely in a receivership proceeding. The proposed intervenor knew that the receiver proposed to sell the property to which the intervenor had an adverse claim six months before the intervenor sought to intervene. Judge Posner and the Seventh Circuit were unwilling to brook that sort of “dawdling,” which created only more work for the receiver, purchaser, and district court.

The case began in 2000 as a suit in which the SEC charged First Choice Management Services with fraud and violating federal securities laws. The district court appointed a receiver and thus began a 14-year effort to track down assets that could be distributed to the victims of First Choice’s $31 million fraud.

Some of those assets were oil leases in Osage, Oklahoma, and in 2003 the receiver identified those leases as receivership assets. In May 2013 the receiver sought the district court’s permission to sell the leases, which the district court gave, as to the plan, in June of that year and, as to the price, in January 2014. It confirmed the sale in May 2014.

The problem was that CRM Energy Partners claimed that it had owned the Osage leases since 2002 and had even been involved in what the court described as “protracted negotiations” with the receiver to reclaim the leases after 2003. But it never was a litigant. Ultimately CRM waited until December 2013 to intervene in the receivership proceeding.

That was too late. The court noted that “CRM had known as early as January 2004, almost ten years before it filed its motion, that the receiver was claiming to own [the Osage leases].” That would have been the best time to intervene. But, as it was, the court found that CRM knew that the district court had approved the receiver’s plan in June 2013 and held that “CRM had no possible excuse for waiting for six months after that before moving to intervene.” CRM “wait[ed] till the last minute to try to throw a monkey wrench into the deal.”

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, and it dismissed CRM’s independent appeal challenging the district court’s sale order.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services