Atlantica Holdings, Inc. et al v. BTA Bank JSC
| Atlantica Holdings, Inc., Baltica Investment Holding, Inc., Blu Funds, Inc., Allan Kiblisky, Anthony Kiblisky and Jacques Gliksberg |
| BTA Bank JSC |
| 1:2013cv05790 |
| August 16, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Securities/Commodities |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
215
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 214 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of BTA Bank JSC against Atlantica Holdings, Inc., Baltica Investment Holding, Inc., Blu Funds, Inc. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court 's Opinion and Order dated August 5, 2020, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs claims under Section I 0(b) and Rule l 0b-5. It follows that they are also entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintif fs' controlling-person liability claims under Section 20(a). See, e.g., First Jersey Sec., Inc., l 01 F.3d at 1472 ("In order to establish a prima facie case of [under Section 20(a)], a plaintiff must show a primary violation.... "). Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED. In addition, Defendants' motion to strike the Hrycay reply declaration is GRANTED in part. All other mot ions are DENIED as moot. One housekeeping matter remains: By letter-motions, both Plaintiffs and Defendants sought to file certain documents under seal. See ECF Nos. 213, 220, 243. The Court granted the letter-motions temporarily, pending its deci sion on the underlying motions. It is well established that filings that are "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process" arc considered "judicial documents" to which a presumption in favor of public access attaches. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, the mere fact that information is subject to a confidentiality agreement between litigants is not a valid basis to overcome that pre sumption. See, e.g., United States v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 12-CV-7527 (JMF), 2015 WL 3999074, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2015) (citing cases). Thus, any party that believes any materials currently under seal should remain under seal or be reda cted is ORDERED to show cause in writing, no later than two weeks from the date of the Opinion and Order, why doing so would be consistent with the presumption in favor of public access. If, by that deadline, no party contends that any particular d ocuments should remain under seal or in redacted form, then the parties shall promptly file such documents publicly on ECF; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 8/6/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
61
OPINION AND ORDER re: 42 MOTION to Dismiss. MOTION to Stay / Defendant "BTA Bank" JSC's Notice of Motion to Dismiss or Stay in Favor of Arbitration filed by BTA Bank JSC: For the reasons stated above, Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Specifically, the motion is DENIED except insofar as the Complaint states claims arising out of statements in 2011 or later on behalf of Baltica and the individual Plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 42. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/12/2015) (tn) Modified on 1/12/2015 (tn).
|
|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiffs Atlantica Holdings, Inc., Baltica Investment Holding, Inc., Blu Funds, Inc., Allan Kiblisky, Anthony Kiblisky, and Jacques Gliksberg sue Defendant BTA Bank JSC ("BTA Bank"), one of the largest banks in Kazakhstan, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. (Compl. (Docket No. 1)). On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs moved, pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for permission to serve BTA Bank through its counsel in New York, White & Case LLP ("White & Case"), rather than in Kazakhstan. (Docket No. 7). By Order entered March 10, 2014, the Court granted the motion for reasons to be explained in an opinion to follow. (Docket No. 16). This is that opinion. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/31/2014) (mro)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
