The Resource Group International Limited et al v. Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti
- Louis Stanton
- 1:23-cv-01760
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In The Resource Group International v. Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti, Judge Stanton granted amendment requests but denied disqualification of plaintiffs’ counsel.
Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti may amend his counterclaim, add Pinebridge Global Emerging Markets Partners II, L.P. and Ali Jameel, and present the operative arbitration demand to the court. The plaintiffs’ counsel, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, was not disqualified. The order does not resolve whether the arbitration claims survive the release agreement.
What happened
The Resource Group International Limited et al v. Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti concerns a dispute over whether claims in an arbitration are barred by a release agreement. The arbitration was pending before Judge James C. Francis IV, who directed Chishti to ask this court to address the issue.
Chishti asked to amend his counterclaim, add two defendants, and place his current arbitration demand before the court. He also asked the court to disqualify the law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP from representing the plaintiffs.
Judge Louis L. Stanton granted the requests to amend the counterclaim and add the two defendants, but denied Chishti’s request to disqualify Cleary Gottlieb because the alleged conflict was not supported. The court did not decide in this order whether Chishti’s arbitration claims survive the release agreement.
The detailed version
- The Resource Group International Limited et al v. Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti · No. 1:23-cv-01760
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 7, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti’s claims in an underlying arbitration were barred by a release agreement. The arbitration was pending before Judge James C. Francis IV. After developments in the arbitration, Chishti filed a Second Amended Demand for Arbitration, which became the operative demand.
Judge Francis directed Chishti to seek this court’s determination of which claims in the Second Amended Demand survived the release agreement, including claims involving Pinebridge Global Emerging Markets Partners II, L.P. Judge Francis also directed Chishti to obtain a ruling concerning claims against that entity. The opinion states that the parties were continuing to submit materials on that issue, with responsive submissions requested by October 20, 2025.
Motions
Chishti moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and 20 to amend his counterclaim. The proposed amendment would add two defendants—Pinebridge Global Emerging Markets Partners II, L.P. and Ali Jameel—and bring the operative arbitration demand before the court. The opinion states that the plaintiffs consented to the amended counterclaim.
Chishti separately moved to disqualify Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP as counsel for the plaintiffs, asserting that the firm had a conflict. The opinion states that this claim lacked support.
Ruling
The court granted the applications to amend the counterclaim, add the two defendants, and bring the operative arbitration demand before the court. The court denied the motion to disqualify Cleary Gottlieb. The order did not decide whether any claims in the Second Amended Demand are barred by the release agreement.
The court also criticized Chishti’s failure to include Judge Francis’s July 23, 2025 order with his filing, calling his practices unacceptable. This criticism did not alter the court’s decision to grant the amendment applications and deny the disqualification motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.