Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
RANDALL D. SMITH ROTH IRA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GRUPO TRIBASA, S.A. DE C.V., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 22, 2002, awarding plaintiff damages, and bringing up for review a prior order which, in an action to collect on a beneficial interest in a “ global” promissory note issued by one defendant and guaranteed by the other, granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against defendants, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
We reject defendants' argument that plaintiff, a purchaser of a beneficial interest in the subject “Regulation S Global Note,” could not resort to the service of process provision contained in defendants' Fiscal Agency Agreement with certain nonparty banks pursuant to which the global note was issued. Under that agreement and a related Offering Circular, the global note was registered in the name of a certain trust company, which was to sell beneficial interests in the global note transferrable through its book entry system. Defendants argue that these book entry transfers of beneficial interests trigger certain registration requirements under the Fiscal Agency Agreement, and that absent registration, a transferee such as plaintiff may not serve process on the agent that defendants designated in the Fiscal Agency Agreement for service of process. However, the registration requirements invoked, which are reprinted on the face of the global note, apply only upon a transfer by the trust company of the entire global note itself, not to transfers of partial beneficial interests. As the motion court held, defendants' argument is flawed in that there has been no transfer of the global note.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 24, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)