Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 15, 2025

Jefferies Strategic Investments, LLC v. Weiss

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:24-cv-04369
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Jefferies Strategic Investments v. Weiss: Judge Hellerstein denied Weiss’s request to reconsider summary judgment enforcing a forbearance agreement.

Who this affects

George Weiss, Jefferies Strategic Investments, LLC, and Leucadia Asset Management Holdings LLC.

What happened

In Jefferies Strategic Investments, LLC v. Weiss, the defendant asked the court to revisit an earlier decision that denied his request for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Jefferies Strategic Investments, LLC and Leucadia Asset Management Holdings LLC.

The court said Weiss was repeating arguments it had already rejected, including his argument that the forbearance agreement lacked mutual agreement. The court explained that the plaintiffs accepted Weiss’s revised, signed agreement in writing and by complying with their obligations and filing a financing statement to record their security interest.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Weiss’s motion for reconsideration. He held that the revised forbearance agreement was a valid and enforceable contract and ordered the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion’s docket entry.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jefferies Strategic Investments, LLC v. Weiss · No. 1:24-cv-04369
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
May 15, 2025

Background

Jefferies Strategic Investments, LLC and Leucadia Asset Management Holdings LLC sued George Weiss. In an earlier Opinion and Order, the court denied Weiss’s motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Weiss then moved for reconsideration, asking the court to revisit that decision.

Legal standard

The court explained that reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue issues simply because a party disagrees with the result. It said reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify a controlling decision or information that the court overlooked. The court found that Weiss did not meet this strict standard because he raised issues that had already been presented and rejected in his summary-judgment motion.

Contract ruling

The court reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that the forbearance agreement was valid and enforceable as to Weiss. Under New York law, the court said, accepting a counteroffer—including through conduct showing agreement—creates a binding contract. The plaintiffs accepted Weiss’s signed, revised version of the agreement in writing. They also showed acceptance through their conduct by fully complying with their obligations under the revised agreement and filing a financing statement to record their security interest.

Disposition

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that the revised forbearance agreement was a valid contract with the force of law. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 43.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.