Vale S.A. v. BSG Resources Limited
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-03619
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Vale v. BSG Resources, Judge Broderick granted Vale’s application for supplemental briefing supporting its request for discovery from Benjamin (Beny) Steinmetz.
Vale S.A., BSG Resources Limited, and Benjamin (Beny) Steinmetz; the ruling concerned supplemental briefing about post-judgment discovery and did not, in the available text, finally compel Steinmetz to respond.
What happened
Vale S.A. had a judgment exceeding $2 billion against BSG Resources Limited. Vale said Benjamin (Beny) Steinmetz was BSGR’s alter ego and sought information about BSGR’s and Steinmetz’s assets to help enforce that judgment.
Vale told the court that Steinmetz had refused to answer discovery requests served on him. Vale argued that evidence of Steinmetz’s control of BSGR, use of corporate funds, shared personnel, and BSGR’s insolvency justified discovery and supported the court’s authority over him.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the application and directed the petitioner to provide supplemental briefing supporting its request. The available text does not show that the court ordered Steinmetz to produce the requested discovery at this stage.
The detailed version
- Vale S.A. v. BSG Resources Limited · No. 1:19-cv-03619
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 29, 2021
Background
The filing states that the court entered a $2,172,833,761.15 judgment for Vale against BSG Resources Limited (BSGR) on March 5, 2020. Vale said the judgment arose from the court’s enforcement of an arbitration award involving a mining concession in Guinea and Vale’s later joint venture with BSGR.
On March 31, 2020, Vale served Benjamin (Beny) Steinmetz with discovery requests seeking information about BSGR’s and Steinmetz’s assets. According to Vale, Steinmetz acknowledged receiving the requests but did not respond. Steinmetz stated that he was not subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction and therefore did not have to answer.
Vale’s Request
Vale asked the court to order Steinmetz to respond to the discovery requests or, alternatively, to allow Vale to submit supplemental briefing and additional evidence. Vale relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a), which allows a judgment creditor to obtain discovery from any person to help enforce a judgment.
Vale argued that Steinmetz was BSGR’s alter ego—that is, that BSGR was so controlled and used by Steinmetz that discovery from him was warranted. Vale pointed to alleged control over BSGR, transfers of corporate funds for personal and family expenses, transactions benefiting entities connected to Steinmetz, overlapping officers and directors, and BSGR’s alleged inadequate capitalization and insolvency.
Vale also argued that the court had personal jurisdiction over Steinmetz because it had jurisdiction over BSGR and because Vale had made the required initial showing of an alter-ego relationship.
Court’s Action
The visible order states: “APPLICATION GRANTED.” It directs the petitioner to provide supplemental briefing supporting its request by a date in May, but the available text cuts off before the complete deadline is shown.
The available text does not show that Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted a motion compelling Steinmetz to answer the discovery requests, made a final alter-ego finding, or resolved the personal-jurisdiction issue. The ruling shown is therefore an order granting the application for supplemental briefing.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.