152 F.3d 917 (2nd Cir. 1998), 97-7936, Daye Nonferrous Metals Co. v. Trafigura Beheer B.V.

Docket Nº:97-7936.
Citation:152 F.3d 917
Party Name:DAYE NONFERROUS METALS COMPANY, Daye Nonferrous Metals Company, Import & Export Company and Huangshi Nonferrousmetals Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. Trafigura BEHEER B.V., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
Case Date:May 26, 1998
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 917

152 F.3d 917 (2nd Cir. 1998)

DAYE NONFERROUS METALS COMPANY, Daye Nonferrous Metals Company, Import & Export Company and Huangshi Nonferrousmetals Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,

v.

Trafigura BEHEER B.V., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

No. 97-7936.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

May 26, 1998

         Editorial Note:

         This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA2 s 0.23 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

        APPEARING FOR APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE: Richard V. Singleton, II, Healy & Baillie, LLP, Shari M. Rubin, of counsel, New York, N.Y.

        APPEARING FOR APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANT: Peter J. Gutowski, Freehill, Hogan & Mahar, William L. Juska, Jr., of counsel, New York, N.Y.

        Present ELLSWORTH VAN GRAAFEILAND, THOMAS J. MESKILL, JOSé A. CABRANES, JJ.

        SUMMARY ORDER

        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 26th day of May, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight.

        ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART and REMANDED.

        Trafigura Beheer B.V. ("Trafigura") appeals from an order of the district court imposing a preliminary injunction enjoining Trafigura from reclaiming or attempting to void a bank guarantee that was posted as substitute security in exchange for the release of monies that were attached pursuant to earlier orders of the court. The order also vacated these earlier orders of attachment. The district court based its preliminary injunction on the likelihood that, in light of Trafigura's alleged pattern of deceptive conduct toward plaintiffs and the court, and the possibility that it might be in "tight financial straits," plaintiffs would have difficulty recovering a prospective arbitral or litigation award.

        Subsequent to briefing in this case, the parties informed us that, pursuant to arbitration compelled by the district court, plaintiffs have been awarded $1,717,104.10, and Trafigura has willingly paid the full...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP