Atlantica Holdings, Inc. v. Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna JSC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:12-cv-08852
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Atlantica Holdings v. Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna, Judge Furman granted defendants’ summary-judgment motion, denied plaintiffs’ partial-summary-judgment motion, and partly granted a motion to strike.
The plaintiffs’ securities and controlling-person liability claims were resolved against them through summary judgment. The defendants obtained summary judgment, and the parties were affected by the rulings on the reply declaration, other motions, and sealed filings.
What happened
Atlantica Holdings, Inc. and other plaintiffs brought claims against Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna JSC and BTA Bank JSC in two proceedings identified by separate docket numbers.
The court ruled that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, as well as related controlling-person liability claims under Section 20(a). The court also addressed a motion to strike a reply declaration and motions concerning sealed filings.
Judge Furman granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, 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 no party did so, the documents were to be filed publicly and the case would be closed.
The detailed version
- Atlantica Holdings, Inc. v. Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna JSC · No. 1:12-cv-08852
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 6, 2020
Related Proceeding
The judgment also identifies a proceeding brought by Atlantica Holdings, Inc. and other plaintiffs against BTA Bank JSC under No. 13 Civ. 5790 (JMF).
Summary Judgment
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated August 5, 2020, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the court determines that the governing standard is met based on the record.
The court further stated 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.
Other Motions and Sealing
The defendants’ motion to strike the Hrycay reply declaration was granted in part. The judgment states that all other motions were denied as moot.
The parties had asked to file certain documents under seal, and the court had temporarily allowed the sealing requests while it considered the underlying motions. 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 the presumption that judicial filings should generally be publicly accessible. If no party identified documents that should remain sealed or redacted by that deadline, the parties were ordered to file the documents publicly on the electronic filing system; the judgment then states that the case was closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.