Roth v. CK Amarillo LP
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-00706
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Roth v. CK Amarillo LP, Judge Swain denied a request to pause the case while a related appeal proceeds.
The parties to Roth v. CK Amarillo LP; the requested pause in this action was denied.
What happened
In Roth v. CK Amarillo LP, the plaintiff asked the court to pause the case while the Court of Appeals considered an appeal in an earlier related proceeding. The request followed defendants’ citation of that earlier proceeding’s decision in support of their pending motion to dismiss.
The earlier proceeding involved whether a company’s share repurchase could count as a purchase by its controlling shareholder under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff said that issue was relevant here and asked for a pause while the appeal was resolved.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the requested pause, substantially for the reasons given in the opposition. The opinion does not provide further detail about those reasons.
The detailed version
- Roth v. CK Amarillo LP · No. 1:24-cv-00706
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 18, 2024
Background
Andrew E. Roth’s counsel asked the court to stay, or pause, this action after defendants filed supplemental authority citing a decision in an earlier related proceeding. That decision dismissed the complaint in the earlier proceeding. Roth’s counsel stated that the earlier proceeding addressed whether an issuer’s share repurchase could be treated as a “purchase” by its controlling shareholder for purposes of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The letter said that issue was relevant to the court’s consideration of defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
Roth had filed a notice of appeal in the earlier related proceeding and requested that this action be stayed until the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit resolved that appeal. The request relied on the court’s authority to pause one case while another proceeding is resolved.
Ruling
The court denied the requested stay, substantially for the reasons stated in the opposition. The opinion does not explain those reasons in greater detail and does not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Effect
The order addresses only the request to pause the action. It does not state a ruling on the merits of Roth’s Section 16(b) claim or on defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.