govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_15-cv-00675-101

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 
 Plaintiff, 
 v. 
IFTIKAR AHMED, 
 Defendant, and  
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED 
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI 
AHMED 2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY 
TRUST; DIYA HOLDINGS LLC; DIYA REAL 
HOLDINGS, LLC; I.I. 1, a minor child, by and 
through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI 
AHMED, his parents; I.I. 2, a minor child, by and 
through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI 
AHMED, his parents; and I.I. 3, a minor child, by 
and through his next friends IFTIKAR and 
SHALINI AHMED, his parents,    
 Relief Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA) 
 
 
August 23, 2023 
 
ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER’S SIXTEENTH MOTION FOR FEES AND GRANTING IN 
PART RECEIVER’S SEVENTEENTH MOTIONS FOR FEES 
Receiver Stephen Kindseth moves for payment of fees and expenses incurred on 
behalf of the Receivership Estate. (Sixteenth and Seventeenth Mots. for Fees [Docs. ## 2444, 
2493].) Defendant opposes (Def.’s Opp’ns [Docs. ## 2452, 2501]), and Ms. Ahmed ([Docs. ## 
2453, 2502]) and the remaining Relief Defendants ([Docs. ## 2454, 2503]) join those 
oppositions to the extent that it does not conflict with their pending motions before the 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2598     Filed 08/23/23     Page 1 of 6
2 
 
Court.1 For the reasons that follow, the Receiver’s Sixteenth  and Seventeenth Motions for 
Fees are granted. 
I. Background 
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts and history of this case but 
will briefly summarize the background relevant to this motion. The Receiver was appointed 
on December 20, 2018. (Appointment Order [Doc # 1070].) The Appointment Order states 
that the Receiver and persons retained to assist in  his administration of the Receivership 
Estate are “entitled to reasonable compensation and expense reimbursement from the 
Receivership Estate,” subject to “prior approval of the Court” and according to 
predetermined hourly billing rates. ( Id. at 16.) The Receiver “shall apply to the Court for 
compensation and expense reimbursement from the Receivership Estate” within forty -five 
days after the end of each calendar quarter. ( Id.) All such fee applications are “interim,” 
“subject to cost/benefit and final rev iews at the close of the receivership,” and subject to a 
holdback in the amount of 20% of the amount of fees and expenses for each application, but 
the “total amounts held back during the course of the receivership may be paid out at the 
discretion of the Court as part of the final fee application.” ( Id. at 15-16.) The Appointment 
Order sets out certain requirements for the content of each fee application. (Id. at 17.) 
II. Discussion 
The Receiver moves for the payment of fees for the following periods: 1) October 1, 
2022 through December 31, 2022, (Sixteenth Mot. for Fees (“Sixteenth Mot.”) [Doc. # 2444] 
at 2); and 2) January  1, 2023  through March 31, 202 3, ( Seventeenth Mot. for Fees 
(“Seventeenth Mot.”) [Doc. # 2493] at 2 ). In his Sixteenth Motion for Fees, “[t]he Receiver 
and Z&Z [Zeisler & Zeisler] seek an allowance of $59,996.75 in compensation for services 
rendered during the Compensation Period on behalf of the Receivership Estate and 
 
1 The Receiver represents that the SEC does not object to the relief sought. (Sixteenth Mot. at 
2, Seventeenth Mot. at 2.) 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2598     Filed 08/23/23     Page 2 of 6
3 
 
reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses in the amount of $1,335.88. Additionally, 
the Receiver seeks this Court’s authority to pay V&L [Verdolino & Lowey, P.C.] $3,758.25 for 
services rendered to the Receivership Estate during the Compensation Period.” ( Sixteenth 
Mot. at 3.) In his Seventeenth Motion for Fees, “[t]he Receiver and Z&Z seek an allowance of 
$71,375.08 in compensation for services rendered during the Compensation Period on 
behalf of the Receivership Estate and reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses in 
the amount of $6,213.75. Additionally, the Receiver seeks this Court’s authority to pay V&L  
$3,563.25 for services rendered to the Receivership Estate during the Compensation Period.” 
(Id.) (Seventeenth Mot. at 3.)” 
The motions “reflect the hours worked by the Receiver and staff at Z&Z and V&L at 
the hourly rates applicable at the time that they  rendered their services, as modified by the 
significant discounts provided by the Receiver, Z&Z, and V&L .” (Seventeenth Mot. at 3.)
2 
Additionally, the Receiver states that the fee applications 
take into account all relevant circumstances and factors as set  
forth in the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct and the 
SEC Guidelines, including the nature of the services performed, 
the amount of time spent, the experience and ability of the 
professionals and paraprofessionals working on this 
engagement, the novelty and complexity of the specific issues 
involved, the time limitations imposed by the circumstances, 
and the responsibilities undertaken by the Receiver, Z&Z, and 
V&L pursuant to this Court’s orders. 
 
(Id. at 3.) The applications include narrative descriptions of the services provided in the time 
records and summaries of the Receiver’s administration of the Receivership Estate. (Id. at 4.) 
The Receiver does not seek “reimbursement for secretarial, word processing, proofreading 
or document preparation expenses (other than by professionals or paraprofessionals), data 
processing and other staff services (exclusive of paraprofessional services ), or clerical 
 
2 Where the Receiver’s motions contain significant overlap in content, the Court cites only to 
the Seventeenth Motion for Fees.  
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2598     Filed 08/23/23     Page 3 of 6
4 
 
overtime.” (Id.) The fee applications reflect the public service discounts determined at the 
time of the Receiver’s appointment, including a twenty -five percent discount to regularly 
applicable hourly rates for all legal professionals and paraprofessionals. ( Id. at 4 -5.) In 
accordance with the SEC Guidelines, the Receiver and Z&Z categorized fees incurred by 
certain “activity categories.” (Id. at 6.) The Receiver provided a detailed description of the 
activities of the Receivership Estate during each billing period. ( Id. at 13-25; Sixteenth Mot. 
at 13-25.) 
 Defendant’s oppositions largely repeat his prior unsuccessful arguments 3, including 
Defendant’s position that the Receiver’s fees should be paid from within the Judgment. (Def.’s 
Opp’n to 17th Mot., at 7 -9.) The Court, in previously addressing this argument ( see [Doc. # 
2028]), reserved a decision on this argument until after liquidation and continues to do so.  
The Court has already rejected the majority  of Defendant’s other arguments, most recently 
in its Ruling Granting Receiver’s Fifteenth Motion for Fees [Doc. #2423]. 
 However, Defendant’s Seventeenth opposition does make three new arguments: first, 
that the Receiver’s compensation should be offset by amounts paid for staging the 
Apartments (Def.’s Opp’n to Seventeenth Mot. at 6); second, that the Receiver should rent the 
Apartments on a month -to-month basis  (id.); and t hird, that the Receiver should not be 
compensated for fees and expenses related to his attendance at oral argument in the Merits 
Appeal, (id. at 6-7). 
The Receiver explains that he expended funds to stage the Apartments in accordance 
with this Court’s Orders, directing him to “market the Apartments as customary for similar 
properties in New York City[.]” (Approved Apartment Sale Procedure, ¶ vi.b  [Docs. # 2424-
1, 2445].) While the sale of the Apartments was stayed by the Second Circuit [Doc. No. 2488], 
that does not change the fact that the Receiver’s expenses were incurred consistent with this 
 
3 See, e.g., Def.’s Opp’n to Receiver’s Sixteenth Mot. at 1 (“The Defendant fully incorporates 
his prior oppositions.”). 
 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2598     Filed 08/23/23     Page 4 of 6
5 
 
Court’s orders prior to the Second Circuit’ s stay were proper and  are deserving of 
reimbursement. 
Defendant’s position that the Receiver should rent the Apartments on a month -to-
month basis has no bearing on the relief sought in these motions. Moreover, this Court 
already rejected Defendant’s prior request that the Receiver rent the Apartments.  (Order 
Denying Mot. to Rent Apartments, [Doc. #  1822].) The Receiver  argues that nothing has 
changed that would justify now renting the Apartments, noting the significant cost expended 
in staging the Apartments, and that such staging remains in place pending the possible future 
decision by the Second Circuit to lift its stay. (Receivers’ Reply for Seventeenth Mot. [Doc. # 
2517] at 3.)4 The Receiver also notes the significant costs and risks associated with renting 
to month-to-month tenants. (Id.) The Court again concludes that the Receiver’s decision not 
to rent the Apartments is “based on his professional expertise to maximize value of  the 
Estate[]  . . . and is an appropriate and authorized exercise of the discretion granted to him 
by the Court.” (Order Denying Mot. to Rent Apartments at 2.) 
As to Defendant’s argument that costs billed for the Receiver and his counsel to attend 
oral ar gument for the Merits Appeal at the Second Circuit were improper, the Receiver 
responds that he and his counsel “attended oral argument to answer any questions that the 
Second Circuit may have had regarding the Receivership Estate and Receivership Assets.”  
(Receiver’s Reply for Seventeenth Mot. at 4.) Defendant argues that the billing of 3.2 hours 
each for Receiver and his counsel described as “Attend 2d Cir oral argument” was improper, 
as Defendant represents that oral argument lasted well under an hour (D ef.’s Opp’n to 
Seventeenth at 6-7). While the in- person attendance of the Receiver was reasonable under 
the circumstances, there is insufficient explanation of the amount of time billed as well as the 
 
4 While that stay by the Second Circuit has since been lifted, this Court recently issued a 
partial stay of liquidation that stays liquidation of the Apartments . (See Order Granting 
Receiver’s Mot. for a Partial Stay [Doc. # 2593] at 15); see also Receiver’s Mem. [Doc. # 2555-
1] at 7-8 (including the Apartments among the assets for which he sought a stay).) 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2598     Filed 08/23/23     Page 5 of 6
6 
 
necessity for hotel expenses.  While the expenses incurred by the Receiver in attending oral 
argument may well be justified, the Receiver must provide a more fulsome  justification for 
these expenses before a final decision as to those costs can be made. 
III. Conclusion 
For the foregoing reasons, the Receiver’s Sixteenth Motion for Fees [Docs. # 2444] is 
GRANTED. The Receiver’s Seventeenth Motion for Fees [Doc. # 2494] is GRANTED IN PART, 
with the exception of the $4,710. 43 in fees and expenses associated with attendance at the 
Second Circuit argument, which will be considered after review of the Receiver’s explanatory 
justification of those costs, which shall be filed by August 30, 2023. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 __________________________/s/__________________ 
 
 Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. 
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 23rd day of August, 2023 
 
 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2598     Filed 08/23/23     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight