After a US District Judge ordered Toronto Dominion (TD) Bank to pay the $67m judgment* entered against it, by February 26, 2015, counsel for the Bank filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, which can only be interpreted as a last-ditch effort to further delay payment of the judgment in the case, which was originally filed back in 2010. I leave the conclusion as to whether it is taken in good faith to the reader.
If you have been following the case, you know that the appeals court has already affirmed the judgment; this "amended appeal" appears to be solely based upon the Bank's professed fear that the plaintiff will obtain a double recovery, inasmuch as the Rothstein law firm's Receiver has disbursed funds to the victims, plaintiff included. This argument has no basis in fact, as counsel for the plaintiff has already represented that his client will refund any and all recoveries that it obtains from the Receiver, back to the RRA Liquidating Trust. Furthermore, the Court has already ordered the plaintiff to rebate, after it receives the judgment payment from TD, the $9m paid to it by the Receiver.There does not appear to be a bona fide issue here for an appeal, in my humble opinion, based upon more than four decades of following appellate decisions, after law school.
There is a supersedeas bond on file with the trial court, which was deposited to allow the bank to take its prior appeal of the judgment. Whether it attempts to further delay the proceedings by arguing that the existing bond is to be applied is not known, but is assumed to be the Bank's position.
The last question I have is whether the Court's Order, entered on February 18, 2015 is truly an appealable order, and should it be the subject to a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 27, Fed.R. App. ? Perhaps it is time for the plaintiff's counsel to explore that possibility.
* Coquina Investments LLC vs. TD Bank, NA, Case No.: 10-cv-60786