The Zeek Rewards Receivership is one step closer to recovering $13.1 million from VictoriaBank, following the denial of rehearing petition.

Following a
successful appeal
by the Zeek Receiver, challenging a decision that would see VictoriaBank keep $13.1 million stolen from Zeek Rewards victims, VictoriaBank filed a
petition for an appeal rehearing
on April 9th.

In a brief two-page order filed on May 22nd, VictoriaBank’s petition was denied.

The court denies the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35 on the petition for rehearing en banc.

Entered at the direction of the panel: Chief Judge Gregory, Judge Keenan, and Senior Judge Shedd.

If I’m understanding the order correctly, none of the three Judges thought the decision warranted a rehearing.

With that out of the way the clawback case bounces back to the District Court.

As per the granted appeal, the District Court has to either grant the Receiver additional discovery or lower the required standard of proof; both of which would ultimately satisfy jurisdictional issues.

Satisfying outstanding jurisdictional issues will see VictoriaBank then try to convince the court why it should be permitted to keep $13.1 million stolen from Zeek Rewards Ponzi victims.

Not quite time to break out the popcorn yet but we’re getting there…

Update 28th June 2018 – 
A District Court hearing for the Receiver’s contempt motion against VictoriaBank has been scheduled for July 18th.

🤖 Quick Answer

What was the outcome of VictoriaBank's petition for appeal rehearing?
VictoriaBank's petition for appeal rehearing was denied on May 22nd by a three-judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Gregory, Judge Keenan, and Senior Judge Shedd. This denial brings the Zeek Rewards Receivership closer to recovering $13.1 million in funds allegedly stolen from victims.

Why did VictoriaBank file for rehearing?
VictoriaBank filed the petition following an unsuccessful appeal where the Zeek Receiver successfully challenged a previous court decision that would have allowed VictoriaBank to retain $13.1 million in disputed funds. The rehearing petition was an attempt to reverse this unfavorable ruling.

What does the denial signify for the Zeek Rewards case?
The denial signifies judicial affirmation of the appellate panel

🔗 Related Articles

- BlackOxygen Organics class-action alleges supplement toxicity
- Bennett v. Isagenix enters mediation, injunction appeal
- Brandon Frye cops $600,000 DIS default judgment
- Ad Marketing Made Easy Review: $50 adcredit Ponzi scheme
- Charles Scoville files Traffic Monsoon Ponzi decision appeal