Carlyle’s $396M Oil Loss Row With Excess Insurers Revived
Caitlin Simpson, 14 April 2021
A New York appeals court has reversed a ruling that Carlyle Group affiliates can’t tap into excess insurance to cover part of $396 million in losses when a Moroccan oil refinery was seized, finding factual disputes remain about whether the policy’s coverage for theft was triggered.
A four-judge Appellate Division panel for the First Department on Tuesday reversed Justice O. Peter Sherwood’s July order that had granted underwriters at Lloyd’s of London’s motion for summary judgment and had rejected Carlyle’s assertion that its oil was essentially stolen by refinery operator Societe Anonyme Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage, or SAMIR. Continue reading “Article: Carlyle’s $396M Oil Loss Row With Excess Insurers Revived”
The PSLRA’s Discovery Stay During the Pendency of a Motion To Dismiss Applies in State Court Actions Asserting 1933 Act Claims
Craig S. Waldman , 08 November 2019
One of the PSLRA’s key procedural protections is the automatic stay of discovery during the pendency of a motion to dismiss. This serves “to protect defendants … from the burden and expense of premature discovery … until the court sustains the sufficiency of the complaint.” ATSI Communications v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 2003 WL 1877227, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2003). “The legislative history of the PSLRA indicates that Congress enacted the discovery stay to prevent plaintiffs from filing securities class actions with the intent of using the discovery process to force a coercive settlement.” In re LaBranche Sec. Litig., 333 F. Supp. 2d 178, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Congress also aimed “to prevent plaintiffs from … using [a meritless lawsuit] as a vehicle ‘in order to conduct discovery in the hopes of finding a sustainable claim not alleged in the complaint.’” In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Sec. Litig., 381 F. Supp. 2d 129, 129-30 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting S. Rep. No. 104-98, at 14 (1995)). Continue reading “Article: The PSLRA’s Discovery Stay During the Pendency of a Motion To Dismiss Applies in State Court Actions Asserting 1933 Act Claims”