Trividia Health, Inc. v. Nipro Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-08450
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trividia Health, Inc. v. Nipro Corporation, Judge Caproni granted motions for stock turnover and a receiver-related show-cause order after confirming an arbitration award.
Trividia Health, Inc. obtained orders enforcing its confirmed arbitration award. Nipro Corporation is subject to the granted turnover request and must show cause within 20 days why a receiver should not be appointed to hold a public sale of its assets.
What happened
In Trividia Health, Inc. v. Nipro Corporation, an international arbitration panel found that Nipro Corporation breached an agreement with Trividia Health and awarded Trividia $21,668,302.30 in damages and legal costs, including accrued interest. The court confirmed that award in December 2021.
Trividia then asked the court to require Nipro to turn over its stock certificates and to order Nipro to explain within 20 days why a receiver should not be appointed to hold a public sale of Nipro’s assets. Nipro opposed the turnover request, arguing that Trividia had not properly served the motion under New York law.
The court ruled that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governed the service issue and that Trividia had properly served Nipro under those rules. Judge Caproni granted both motions and directed the Clerk to close them.
The detailed version
- Trividia Health, Inc. v. Nipro Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-08450
- Valerie Caproni
- May 16, 2022
Background
After a three-year arbitration proceeding, an International Chamber of Commerce tribunal issued a Final Award on September 18, 2020. The tribunal determined that Nipro Corporation had breached an agreement with Trividia Health, Inc. and awarded Trividia $21,668,302.30 in damages and legal costs, including accrued interest. Trividia moved to confirm the non-domestic arbitration award, and the court granted that motion on December 10, 2021.
Trividia then filed two enforcement motions: one seeking an order requiring Nipro to turn over its stock certificates, and another seeking an order requiring Nipro to show cause within 20 days why a receiver should not be appointed to hold a public sale of Nipro’s assets to pay the judgment.
Service Dispute
Nipro opposed the turnover motion on procedural grounds. It argued that New York law required Trividia to serve the motion in the same manner as a summons or by registered or certified mail with a return receipt requested. Nipro contended that Trividia’s failure to use one of those methods made the proceeding jurisdictionally defective. Nipro also argued that Trividia could not rely on a prior order permitting alternative service.
The court rejected that argument. The motions were brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, which generally requires enforcement of a money judgment to follow the procedure of the state where the federal court is located, unless a federal statute governs. The court held that, to the extent New York law restricted service methods beyond what the Federal Rules permit, the Federal Rules controlled. Because Trividia served Nipro in a manner allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, the court found that service was proper.
Ruling
The court granted both of Trividia’s motions. The order therefore granted the request for turnover of Nipro’s stock certificates and the request for an order requiring Nipro to show cause within 20 days why a receiver should not be appointed to conduct a public sale of Nipro’s assets. The court did not state in this opinion that a receiver had already been appointed. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 43 and 45.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.