Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd v. Pareteum Corporation
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:19-cv-10460
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sabby Volatility v. Pareteum, an unopposed motion sought a stay, but Judge Hellerstein’s provided text states no disposition.
The requested stay would affect the plaintiff, Pareteum Corporation, and the named individual defendants by pausing further proceedings, scheduling deadlines, and related hearings.
What happened
In Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd v. Pareteum Corporation, Pareteum Corporation asked the court to pause further proceedings, including remaining scheduling deadlines and related hearings. The motion was unopposed by the plaintiff and the individual defendants.
The motion said a stay was needed because of an ongoing government investigation and Pareteum’s financial difficulties. It also said the parties were mediating and believed a stay could preserve resources, including insurance assets. The parties proposed reporting on the case’s status within 90 days after a stay order.
The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the motion. Judge Hellerstein’s disposition therefore cannot be determined from this text.
The detailed version
- Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd v. Pareteum Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-10460
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Feb. 10, 2022
Nature of the Filing
The provided document is an unopposed motion by Defendant Pareteum Corporation to stay, or pause, further proceedings. It asks the court to pause remaining scheduling deadlines and hearings related to those deadlines.
Reasons Given for the Requested Stay
The motion argues that a stay is appropriate because:
- A government investigation related to the subject matter of the litigation is ongoing. - Pareteum has a precarious financial condition and is considering strategic alternatives to address liquidity constraints. - The parties have been mediating but have been hindered by those two circumstances. - A stay could preserve scarce resources, including liability-insurance assets, while the parties await more information about the investigation and Pareteum’s financial condition.
Positions of the Parties
The motion states that the plaintiff does not oppose the requested stay. It also states that the individual defendants—Robert H. Turner, Edward O’Donnell, Victor Bozzo, Denis McCarthy, Robert Lippert, Yves Van Sante, and Luis Jimenez-Tunon—do not oppose it. Pareteum was also filing an unopposed request for the same stay in a related proceeding identified as No. 1:19-cv-09767-AKH-GWG in the Southern District of New York.
Proposed Case Update
The parties proposed reporting to the court on the status of this matter within 90 days after entry of an order staying the proceedings.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain an order granting or denying the motion. It presents Pareteum’s request and the reasons offered for it, but Judge Alvin Hellerstein’s ruling cannot be determined from the text provided.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.