Atlantica Holdings, Inc. v. BTA Bank JSC
- 1:13-cv-05790
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Atlantica Holdings v. BTA Bank, the court granted defendants’ summary judgment, denied plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment, and partly granted a motion to strike.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Atlantica Holdings securities litigation, including the parties to the related action identified in the judgment, were affected by the summary-judgment rulings, the partial ruling on the motion to strike, and the document-sealing instructions.
What happened
In Atlantica Holdings, Inc. v. BTA Bank JSC, the plaintiffs and defendants filed competing motions concerning claims under federal securities laws. The judgment also refers to a related action against Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna JSC.
The court ruled that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. Because those claims failed, the court also granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants were liable as controlling persons under Section 20(a).
The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and granted in part the motion to strike the Hrycay reply declaration. The court denied all other motions as moot and ordered the parties to justify continued sealing or redaction of documents; if they did not, the documents were to be filed publicly and the case would be closed. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.
The detailed version
- Atlantica Holdings, Inc. v. BTA Bank JSC · No. 1:13-cv-05790
- Aug. 6, 2020
Background
The judgment concerns competing summary-judgment motions in a case brought by Atlantica Holdings, Inc. and other plaintiffs against BTA Bank JSC. The document also lists a related action by the same plaintiffs against Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna JSC. The judgment states that the court’s reasons were set out in an Opinion and Order dated August 5, 2020.
Claims and ruling
The defendants sought summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The court held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on those claims. The court also held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ controlling-person liability claims under Section 20(a), because those claims required a primary violation.
The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was DENIED. The defendants’ motion to strike the Hrycay reply declaration was GRANTED in part. The judgment states that all other motions were DENIED as moot.
Sealing and case status
The parties had asked to file certain documents under seal, and the court had temporarily granted those requests while deciding the underlying motions. The court explained that documents relevant to the judicial function generally carry a presumption of public access, and that a confidentiality agreement alone does not overcome that presumption. The court ordered any party seeking continued sealing or redaction to show in writing, within two weeks of the Opinion and Order, why that treatment was consistent with public access. If no party identified documents that should remain sealed or redacted by the deadline, the parties were ordered to file the documents publicly on the electronic docket. The judgment states that the case would then be closed.
The text supplied does not identify the judge by name; it identifies Ruby J. Krajick as the Clerk of Court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.