Star Colbert v. Dougan
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:23-cv-07297
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Star Colbert v. Dougan, Judge McMahon received plaintiffs’ requests to consolidate related cases and allow a sur-reply; the provided text contains no ruling.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Star Colbert v. Dougan and the related Schur and Hohimer Wealth Mgmt. actions; the letter specifically concerns holders of Credit Suisse AT1 bonds and the parties’ requests about consolidated briefing and a sur-reply.
What happened
In Star Colbert v. Dougan, the plaintiffs asked the court to combine briefing with two related cases involving the same defendants and alleged statutory duty concerning Credit Suisse AT1 bondholders.
The plaintiffs argued that consolidation would promote efficiency and that the related cases included plaintiffs based in the United States, which they said mattered to the defendants’ request to move the case to a more convenient court. They also asked permission to respond to new or changed opinions in a supplemental declaration from the defendants’ Swiss-law expert.
The provided text is a letter from the plaintiffs’ lawyer to Judge Colleen McMahon, not a court ruling. It does not state that the court granted or denied either request.
The detailed version
- Star Colbert v. Dougan · No. 1:23-cv-07297
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 2, 2024
Document and posture
The provided text is a December 29, 2023 letter from plaintiffs’ counsel to Judge Colleen McMahon. It responds to the defendants’ opposition to the plaintiffs’ request to file a consolidated amended complaint and to the plaintiffs’ request to file a sur-reply, which is an additional written response.
Request to consolidate
The plaintiffs asked the court to coordinate or consolidate briefing in Star Colbert with Schur v. Dougan and Hohimer Wealth Mgmt. v. Dougan. The letter says all three actions assert the same claim against the same defendants based on the same events. It also says the related actions involve United States-based plaintiffs, while the Star Colbert defendants’ forum non conveniens motion relied in significant part on the Star Colbert plaintiffs allegedly not being based in the United States.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had the burden to show that another forum was clearly appropriate and that the presence of United States-based plaintiffs should receive greater consideration. They said consolidated briefing would promote judicial efficiency and avoid having the court decide the forum issue in Star Colbert and later revisit it in the related actions. The letter characterizes the defendants’ opposition as unsupported by analysis.
Request to file a sur-reply
The plaintiffs also asked permission to file a sur-reply because they said the defendants’ Swiss-law expert, Grolimund, offered new, different, and partly contradictory opinions in a supplemental declaration. The letter identifies disputed issues concerning Swiss company law, including whether a creditor must have suffered direct loss, whether Swiss law contains the necessary protective rules for a direct creditor claim, and whether a creditor must additionally show that the alleged breach was directed against that creditor.
The defendants reportedly denied that the expert changed his opinions and called the proposed sur-reply based on a false premise. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants did not specifically address the points in the plaintiffs’ experts’ supplemental declaration.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain an order or other ruling by Judge Colleen McMahon. It therefore does not state whether the requests to consolidate or to file a sur-reply were granted or denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.