Greystone Select Holdings LLC v. Computershare Trust Company, N.A.
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-00657
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Greystone Select Holdings v. Wells Fargo Bank, Judge Swain ordered supplemental briefing on the meaning of “Base Rate” in the indenture agreements.
Greystone Select Holdings LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Computershare Trust Company, N.A.; the order required both sides to submit supplemental briefing.
What happened
Greystone Select Holdings LLC sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. The order concerns how the indenture agreements define “Base Rate.”
The court directed both parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the definition’s interpretation, each party’s proposed interpretation, and whether the issue can be resolved at this stage of the litigation. The order set deadlines and word limits for the briefs.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order on January 29, 2025. The order did not decide which interpretation is correct or whether the issue can be resolved at this stage.
The detailed version
- Greystone Select Holdings LLC v. Computershare Trust Company, N.A. · No. 1:24-cv-00657
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 29, 2025
Background
Greystone Select Holdings LLC brought this case against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. The court focused on the meaning of “Base Rate” in Schedule A, Paragraph 3 of the indenture agreements.
The agreements define “Base Rate” as the greater of the arithmetic mean of two figures: the prime rate for dollar-denominated loans quoted by leading banks in New York City selected by the Calculation Agent, and the Federal Funds Rate plus 0.50% per year.
Court’s Order
The court directed both parties to file supplemental briefing about how the “Base Rate” definition should be interpreted and whether its meaning can be resolved at this stage of the litigation. The briefs must state each party’s proposed interpretation, as applicable. The order cited MAK Tech. Holdings Inc. v. Anyvision Interactive Techs. Ltd.
The defendants’ initial brief was due February 5, 2025; Greystone Select Holdings could respond by February 12, 2025; and the defendants could reply by February 18, 2025. Initial briefs were limited to 1,500 words, and the reply was limited to 1,000 words. The court did not decide the definition’s meaning or whether the issue could be resolved at that stage.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.