Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership acting through Vantage Mezzanine Fund II…
Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership acting through Vantage Mezzanine Fund II (Pty) Ltd v. Kodwo Taylor
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-06852
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Vantage Mezzanine Fund II v. Taylor, Judge Carter denied the Rule 59(e) motion but granted the same modification under Rule 60(a).
Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and John Eric Kodwo Taylor; the judgment confirming the arbitral award was clarified and re-entered.
What happened
Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership asked the court to revise a judgment confirming an arbitration award. The existing judgment did not state the award amount or expressly say that the court had recognized English and Bermudian judgments, even though the court’s earlier opinion addressed those points.
The court said the request was not proper under Rule 59(e), which concerns substantive changes to a judgment. Instead, the request sought clarification and additional detail already contained in the court’s earlier opinion. Rule 60(a) permits that type of correction, including when a court acts on its own.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied the motion under Rule 59(e) but granted the modification under Rule 60(a). He directed the Clerk to re-enter the judgment using the proposed version submitted by the petitioner, with prior actions tied to the original judgment retaining the same effect.
The detailed version
- Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership acting through Vantage Mezzanine Fund II… · No. 1:23-cv-06852
- Andrew Carter
- July 1, 2025
Background
The petitioner had previously obtained an order confirming an arbitral award, followed by a September 30, 2024 judgment in its favor. The judgment stated that the petitioner’s supplemental motion to confirm the arbitral award was granted, but it did not expressly state the amount the petitioner was entitled to receive under the award or expressly state that the court had recognized judgments from England and Bermuda. Those details appeared in the court’s earlier opinion.
On October 23, 2024, the petitioner moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to amend the judgment. The respondent did not oppose the motion. The petitioner’s proposed amended judgment would add the award amount and language recognizing the English and Bermudian judgments.
Rules Applied
Rule 59(e) governs motions seeking substantive changes to a judgment, such as corrections of a clear legal error or prevention of serious injustice. It generally does not apply to merely clerical corrections. Rule 60(a), by contrast, permits a court to correct non-substantive or clerical errors, clarify a judgment, or add details that were part of the court’s decision but were omitted from the judgment. The court may make a Rule 60(a) correction on a party’s motion or on its own.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the petitioner had used the wrong rule. The requested additions were already included in the court’s earlier opinion and would provide greater detail without creating a new or different award. The request therefore fell outside Rule 59(e) but within Rule 60(a).
Disposition
The court denied the petitioner’s motion under Rule 59(e). Separately, the court granted the modification under Rule 60(a), acting on its own authority. The Clerk was directed to re-enter the judgment using the petitioner’s proposed judgment. The amended judgment was to have the same effect for prior actions as the original judgment, and the pending motion was terminated.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.