Order | Filed: June 18, 2026
| Entered: June 18, 2026
Securities and Exchange Commission et al v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC et al
Securities/Commodities | New York Eastern
Status Report Order
ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff Abdoulaye Camara's motion to intervene ("Motion"), ECF No. 304 , the supporting documents, ECF No. 305 , and Joseph T. Gardemal III's (the "Receiver's") response in opposition, ECF No. 316 . The Motion pertains to the effect of the 2023 Order Appointing Receivership and Imposing Litigation Injunction ("Receivership Order"), ECF No. 187 , on Mr. Camara's preexisting 2019 workplace injury lawsuit, Abdoulaye Camara v. Five Star Carting, Inc., No. 508058/2019 (Sup. Ct., Kings County) ("Camara Action").
The parties agree that the Receivership Order stayed the Camara Action with motions for summary judgment pending, rendering Mr. Camara unable to proceed with his workplace injury claim or have it adjudicated until the stay is lifted. See ECF No. 305 ; ECF No. 316 . The Receiver originally opposed Mr. Camara's Motion as premature due to an upcoming mediation scheduled in the Camara Action. See ECF No. 316 . Since then, the Receiver has relayed that the Camara Action mediation was unsuccessful, see ECF No. 322 , and the Court has granted the Receiver's motion for settlement, ECF No. 326 , to include terms for disbursement of Receivership assets, see Settlement Order, ECF No. 347 . Based on these changed circumstances, the Court requires additional input from Mr. Camara and the Receiver before ruling on Mr. Camara's Motion.
On or before the close of business on 6/25/2026, Mr. Camara and the Receiver must respond to this Order individually or jointly. In response, each party must include the following: (1) its position on granting the Motion for the limited purpose of permitting Mr. Camara to file a motion to lift the litigation stay in the Camara Action at this time; (2) what effect, if any, limiting recovery sought in the Camara Action to insurance proceeds would have on its position; (3) whether the Camara Action should be treated like, or unlike, the non-exclusive list of litigations in Schedule 3 of the Receivership Order, and why; and (4) discussion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b) specifically as they apply, or do not apply, to the Motion.
Ordered by Chief Mag. Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 6/18/2026. (NTH)