Plata Capital Limited v. Financial Technology Partners L.P. and FTP Securities…

Background

Plata Capital Limited sued Financial Technology Partners L.P. and FTP Securities LLC, collectively called FT Partners, seeking to end its obligations under a 2023 engagement letter. The letter provided that FT Partners would give Plata financial advice in exchange for commissions on certain transactions. Plata alleged that FinTech Acquisition Limited’s April 23, 2024 acquisition of Plata was a sale covered by the engagement letter and therefore ended Plata’s relationship with FT Partners. FT Partners characterized the acquisition as a sham transaction intended to avoid Plata’s obligations.

FT Partners sought to require FinTech Acquisition Limited, referred to in the opinion as FAL HoldCo, to participate in both merits discovery and jurisdictional discovery. Merits discovery concerns evidence relevant to the parties’ underlying claims and defenses. Jurisdictional discovery concerns evidence relevant to whether the court has personal jurisdiction—legal authority over a particular defendant.

Merits Discovery

The court held that FAL HoldCo had to comply with FT Partners’ July 10, 2025 discovery request. The court found the requested discovery relevant because the claims turned on FAL HoldCo’s acquisition of Plata. It also held that service of the request on Plata constituted service on FAL HoldCo, based on statements by Plata’s counsel at the initial conference and the court’s case-management plan identifying FAL HoldCo as a party subject to discovery. The court had also previously directed FAL HoldCo to produce specified documents.

The court rejected FAL HoldCo’s argument that it had no duty to produce documents because Plata’s production was allegedly duplicative. It explained that a parent and subsidiary are legally distinct entities with separate discovery obligations, and that documents held by one entity are not automatically treated as being under the control of the other. The court also stated that FAL HoldCo’s documents could be relevant to claims beyond those directly asserted against FAL HoldCo.

Jurisdictional Discovery

The court separately authorized limited jurisdictional discovery concerning FAL HoldCo’s challenge to personal jurisdiction. FT Partners asserted that discovery could reveal facts supporting jurisdiction, including facts about the disputed relationship between FAL HoldCo and North Haven. The court found the request justified because genuine factual issues concerning jurisdiction can warrant discovery even without an initial showing establishing jurisdiction.

The discovery was intended to help determine whether FAL HoldCo was subject to personal jurisdiction under the first part of New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302(a)(1). That provision can permit jurisdiction over a party whose business transactions show that it deliberately used the privileges of doing business in New York. The court directed the parties to conduct documentary and testimonial jurisdictional discovery promptly and expected it to be completed within four weeks.

Disposition

The court granted FT Partners’ request to compel FAL HoldCo to participate in merits discovery. It also authorized jurisdictional discovery to assist in resolving FAL HoldCo’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court extended by four weeks the deadlines for FT Partners’ opposition brief and FAL HoldCo’s reply on that motion. The order did not itself decide whether personal jurisdiction exists or resolve the underlying dispute about the engagement letter.