Prophet Mortgage Opportunities, LP v. Christiana Trust
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-09771
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Prophet Mortgage v. Christiana Trust: Judge Cronan ordered supplemental briefing and granted sealing of a third-party complaint.
The parties must address the specified issues in supplemental briefs, and public access to the defendants’ Third-Party Complaint is limited because the unredacted version will be sealed and the public version redacted.
What happened
In Prophet Mortgage Opportunities, LP v. Christiana Trust, the court allowed the parties to submit additional briefs, each no longer than ten pages, by January 31, 2024. The briefs must address whether the plaintiff may bring direct and derivative claims together, whether Count Five may be brought against the Owner Trustee, and how a cited appeals-court decision affects Count Six.
The court also granted the request to seal the defendants’ Third-Party Complaint because it contained sensitive business information. The unredacted complaint must be filed under seal, while the public version will include the proposed redactions. The court directed the clerk to close Docket Number 69.
Judge John P. Cronan issued this order on January 23, 2024. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Prophet Mortgage Opportunities, LP v. Christiana Trust · No. 1:22-cv-09771
- John Cronan
- Jan. 24, 2024
What the Order Does
The court permitted the parties to file supplemental briefing of no more than ten pages by January 31, 2024. The requested briefing concerns three issues:
- Whether the plaintiff may bring direct and derivative claims at the same time under the framework discussed in Tatintsian v. Vorotyntsev, with particular attention to Section 8.02 of the Trust Agreement.
- Whether Count Five may be brought against the Owner Trustee.
- Whether, and to what extent, Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities LLC affects Count Six.
Sealing Ruling
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions concerning the sealing of the defendants’ Third-Party Complaint and redactions in the publicly filed version. It granted the request based on the reasons stated by the plaintiff in its January 15, 2024 letter concerning sensitive business information in the complaint.
The unredacted Third-Party Complaint must be filed under seal. The publicly filed version must contain the proposed redactions. The court also directed the clerk to close Docket Number 69.
Disposition and Effect
The court granted the sealing request and ordered supplemental briefing. It did not resolve the underlying claims or decide the three issues identified for briefing. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.