UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP CUBED DOMAINS LLC SHALINI AHMED SHALINI AHMED 2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUNITY TRUST DIYA HOLDINGS LLC DIYA REAL HOLDINGS LLC IFTIKAR SHALINI AHMED IFTIKAR SHALINI AHMED IFTIKAR SHALINI AHMED (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT OF ROSENBERG & PITTINSKY, LLP, NUNC PRO TUNC TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2025, AS REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RECEIVER

Before the Court is the Receiver's Motion for Authority to Employ Rosenberg & Pittinsky, LLP, Nunc Pro Tunc to September 30, 2025, as Real Estate Attorney for Receiver (ECF No. 3069) (the “Motion”). Relief Defendant Shalini Ahmed filed her opposition to the Motion on October 24, 2025 (ECF No. 3085) (the “Opposition”), and the Receiver filed his reply to the Opposition on November 21, 2025 (ECF No. 3118) (the “Reply”). Throughout the instant order, the Court assumes familiarity with the underlying extensive litigation in this case and the papers filed in connection with the Motion, Opposition, and Reply.

First, the Court notes that pursuant to the Appointment Order, the Receiver is permitted to “engage and employ persons in his discretion, as reasonably necessary,” subject to the Court's approval.¹ It also notes that the Retention Agreement ² presented for approval here is contingent on the Court's approval and would have no force or effect without such approval.

Second, the Court finds that:

1. Rosenberg & Pittinsky, LLP (“R&P”) and Attorney Pittinsky have no conflicts of interest with the Receiver, the Receivership Estate, or any party to this action.

2. The employment of R&P is necessary. Due to the unique nature of condominium practice in New York, R&P's proposed services are specialized, not duplicative to services rendered by Z&Z, and are in the best interest of Receivership Estate.

3. The employment of R&P is cost-effective. R&P's proposed compensation is less than what Z&Z would charge for the same services. Further, the Court is persuaded that the flat rates and hourly rates set forth in the Retention Agreement are “consistent with the ordinary and customary rate that R&P charges for other clients for other clients for similar transactions and․that they are consistent with the rates typically charged by attorneys with similar degrees of experience, expertise, and sophistication for transactions of the nature․ [that] R&P will be handling.”3

4. The Retention Agreement is reasonable and appropriate. The Court is convinced that its supervision over R&P's hourly compensation is adequate to protect the Receivership Estate from “unlimited fee exposure.” Based on this supervision, along with the Receiver's representation that any hourly fees will be “minimal,”4 the Court declines to set a cap on such fees.

5. This Court has the ability to issue nunc pro tunc relief in exceptional circumstances, including when a party is “under time pressure to begin service without approval” and when “compensation to the applicant will prejudice innocent third parties.” In re Keren Ltd. P'ship., 225 B.R. 303, 306-07 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (cleaned up). These circumstances are presented in the instant case. Specifically, “[i]t became apparent to the Receiver that having New York real estate counsel would be in the best interest of the Receivership Estate upon his acceptance of an offer for the purchase of Apartment 12A and the commencement of the contract drafting process.”5 “R&P was under time pressure to begin services [following his acceptance of offers for Apartment 12A and, shortly thereafter, Apartment 12F]․[I]n the absence of R&P's immediate services to negotiate and draft contract provisions, the Receivership Estate would have lost [the offers].”6 Thus, nunc pro tunc relief is appropriate. While the Court would prefer that motions of this nature not be presented on a nunc pro tunc basis in the future, it recognizes the circumstances giving rise to the present request and finds no indication of bad faith or improper intent by the Receiver.

Lastly, the Court notes that it finds any other unaddressed arguments in the Opposition unavailing, largely for the reasons set forth in the Reply. For example, the Court does not find any legal basis to stay the Motion or to order the Retention Agreement to reference the Standing Protective Order. Nor can the Court locate a basis to order the “fiduciary safeguards” Relief Defendant Shalini Ahmed seeks.

Thus, pursuant to the Appointment Order and the above findings, and due deliberation having been had hereon and good and sufficient cause appearing, and due and adequate notice having been provided, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and the Receiver is hereby authorized to retain and employ R&P, nunc pro tunc to September 30, 2025, as real estate attorney for the Receiver; and it is further;

ORDERED that for hourly fees incurred by R&P, if any, R&P shall submit time records in a form consistent with that required by the Appointment Order and the SEC Billing Instructions for Receiver in Civil Actions Commenced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to the Receiver for inclusion in the Receiver's quarterly fee applications and as further directed by this Court, and allowed in the discretion of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Appointment Order, ECF No. 1070 at 7, ¶ 5(e) and 15-16, ¶ 33.

2.   Any reference to the Retention Agreement refers to the latest version of such agreement, where R&P has waived the five percent monthly late charge, per the Reply. See ECF No. 3118 at 5 and id. at Exh. A.

3.   Decl. of Laurence D. Pittinsky, ECF No. 3069-1 at 4.

4.   ECF No. 3118 at 9.

5.   Id. at 4, n. 4.

6.   Id. at 4.

VERNON D. OLIVER United States District Judge