in New York, Delaware, the Cayman Islands or the BVI. Rather, the Objecting Claimants, who generally were either non-managing members or limited partners, purchased mere ownership interests in the Feeder Funds. The cash that they used to make those purchases became the sole property of the Feeder Funds. See William Meade Fletcher, Fletoher Cyclopedia of the Law of CORPORATIONS § 31 (2011) (“[T]he capital or assets of the corporation are its property.”); N.Y. Ltd. Liab. Co. § 601 (“A member has no interest in specific property of the limited liability company.”); Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross, 563 F.2d 1057, 1075 n. 22 (2d Cir.1977) (“[A]s a general proposition limited partners have no property right in the partnership assets.... ”); Alley v. Clark, 71 F.Supp. 521, 527 (E.D.N.Y.1947) (<HOLDING>); In re Marriott Hotel Props. II Ltd. P’ship,
holding that where agreement stated that the employer shall not have any legal or equitable right title or interest in certain monies such monies were plan assets holding that a court may not enter an injunction freezing assets in action for damages where there is no equitable interest in frozen assets holding that westwood was not an indispensable party to the proceedings because westwood had not claimed an interest in busters limited partnership interest at the time of the default judgment holding that personal jurisdiction over partner did not follow from jurisdiction over partnership citing sher holding that a limited partner does not have an interest right or title in the assets of the partnership