Order | Filed: July 10, 2026
| Entered: July 10, 2026
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al
Securities/Commodities | Connecticut
Order ~Util - Terminate Motions
ORDER granting 3219 Motion for Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc; adopting 3219 Proposed Order, per the attached (hereby the “Sanctions Order”); and denying 3229 Cross-Motion for Stay of Enforcement Pending Appeal.
Background
The Court assumes familiarity with this matter’s extensive underlying procedural and factual history. For purposes of deciding this Motion, the Court recounts the following: On May 4, 2026, the Court entered an order finding Relief-Defendant Shalini Ahmed in contempt of the Court’s previous orders and awarding the Receiver compensatory sanctions. ECF No. 3196 (“Contempt Order”). The Court thus ordered the Receiver to “file a proposed order specifying the compensatory fees he seeks to recover in connection with [the Contempt Motion], along with contemporaneous billing records and other supporting documentation.” Id. The Receiver filed his proposed order, along with a motion for extension of time nunc pro tunc (ECF No. 3219); Ms. Ahmed filed a response and cross-motion for stay of enforcement pending appeal (ECF No. 3229); the Receiver replied (ECF No. 3234); as did Ms. Ahmed (ECF No. 3235). The Court now considers the motion for extension of time, the proposed order, and the cross-motion to stay in turn.
Motion for Extension of Time
First, given the lack of objection to the Receiver’s Motion for Extension of Time nunc pro tunc to file his Proposed Order and the Motion’s compliance with the undersigned’s preferences, the Court grants the Motion for Extension of Time.
Sanctions Order
Second, having reviewed the Proposed Order, together with contemporaneous billing records and supporting documentation, the Court adopts the attached Sanctions Order, directing Ms. Ahmed to pay to the Receivership Estate compensatory sanctions in the amount of $23,151.42. The Court finds the rates and the work incurred by the Receiver reasonable. In fact, the Court has already approved all of the relevant entries as part of the Receiver’s 28th Fee Application. See ECF No. 3178 (finding it “apparent that the Receiver has necessarily expended many hours and resources to discharge his duties. Relief Defendant Ahmed has failed to show that the Receiver's fees are excessive or duplicative, that the Receiver has mismanaged the assets, or that payment to the Receiver should be further conditioned or delayed”). The approval was based on the Receiver’s compliance, in the 28th Fee Application, with stringent SEC Billing Instructions, as part of which the Receiver was to submit a certification that all fees and expenses are true, accurate, and compliant, and that the fees “are reasonable, necessary and commensurate with the skill and experience required for the activity performed.” SEC Billing Instructions at 2, available at https://www.sec.gov/oiea/Article/billinginstructions.pdf. The Receiver also—in line with the SEC Billing Instructions and as he does here—provided contemporaneous time records in increments of tenths of an hour and “set forth in reasonable detail and appropriate narrative description of the services rendered.” Id. at 4.
Here, it is clear that in compiling the Proposed Order and the amount of sanctions requested therein, the Receiver conducted a meticulous review of all billing entries in the already-approved 28th Fee Application and included only those that pertained to the review and analysis of Ms. Ahmed’s pre-trial filings in the Dissolution Proceeding, preparation to defend the Receivership Estate at the (at the time) imminent trial, the Receiver’s response to Ms. Ahmed’s motion for a protective order therein, preparation and prosecution of the Contempt Motion, and compliance with this Court’s relevant orders. In other words, the Receiver included only the fees that were incurred due to Ms. Ahmed’s contempt. Thus, Ms. Ahmed is to reimburse the Receivership Estate for those fees per the Court’s Contempt Order.
Ms. Ahmed’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Namely, the Court is unaware of any legal authority that requires the Receiver to submit, as Ms. Ahmed claims he must, “an affid... (truncated)