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.
GRYPHON DOMESTIC VI, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, Warner Mansion Fund, Plaintiff, v. APP INTERNATIONAL FINANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered February 24, 2006, on default of certain notes, to plaintiff Gryphon against the APP/Lontar/Asia defendants in the principal sum of $9,683,695, to plaintiff OCM II against APP/Lontar/Asia in the principal sum of $72,406,578, to OCM II against the Indah Kiat defendants in the principal sum of $25,402,604, to plaintiff OCM III against APP/Lontar/Asia in the principal sum of $52,649,728, to OCM III against Indah Kiat in the principal sum of $24,052,517, to plaintiff Columbia against APP/Lontar/Asia in the principal sum of $2,699,817, to Columbia against Indah Kiat in the principal sum of $696,016, to plaintiff Gramercy against APP/Lontar/Asia in the principal sum of $23,463,982, and to Gramercy against Indah Kiat in the principal sum of $51,577,248, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendants' procurement of judgments in Indonesia was in bad faith. They deliberately erected legal impediments to the enforcement of this Court's orders with respect to indentures governed by New York law (see e.g. 41 A.D.3d 25, 836 N.Y.S.2d 4 [2007] ). Principles of comity will not prevent summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor under these circumstances.
Defendants' interpretation of the “no action” clause is unpersuasive, given the language of the indentures. These sophisticated parties could have included a requirement in the notes that any request or demand by an agent on a noteholder's behalf be accompanied by written proof of agency, but they did not. Nor did they indicate that the absence of a writing accompanying such a demand would be “insufficient” under its provisions. The trustee believed the demand to be genuine, even in the absence of a writing establishing the agency relationship.
There is no basis for further discovery. We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them without merit.
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: November 13, 2007
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)