Ema Financial, LLC v. Joey New York, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:17-cv-09706
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ema Financial v. Joey New York Inc., Judge Broderick ordered next steps after appellate instructions concerning possible usury in the notes.
Ema Financial, LLC, Joey New York Inc., the other defendants named in the caption, and the parties involved in the pending fee and subpoena motions.
What happened
In Ema Financial, LLC v. Joey New York Inc., et al., the appeals court partly overturned an earlier judgment and directed the district court to decide whether the notes’ floating-price conversion options made them usurious.
Judge Broderick ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by September 14, 2023, proposing how to proceed and stating whether more written arguments were needed. The letter also had to address pending requests for fees and to force compliance with a subpoena.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide whether the notes were usurious or rule on the pending motions. He ordered the parties to explain how the appeals court’s decision affected those issues.
The detailed version
- Ema Financial, LLC v. Joey New York, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-09706
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit partly vacated Judge Broderick’s earlier judgment. It directed the district court to determine whether the notes’ floating-price conversion options made the notes usurious. The appeals court further instructed that, if the options’ value at the time the parties contracted caused the notes’ interest rates to exceed 25 percent, the notes must be found void and unenforceable under the authority cited in the order.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by September 14, 2023, proposing next steps for resolving the issue identified by the appeals court. The parties had to state whether additional briefing was necessary and, if so, propose a briefing schedule.
Two other motions were pending: a motion for fees and a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena. The court required the joint letter to explain how the appeals court’s decision affected those motions and whether they were moot, should be modified, or should remain pending.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not decide whether the notes were usurious, whether they were void or unenforceable, or how the pending fee and subpoena motions should be resolved. It set a process for addressing those issues after the appeals court’s partial remand.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the parties to submit the joint letter by September 14, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.