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.
IN RE: Saro Cutri, Petitioner–Appellant, Eric Rodie et al., Petitioners, v. Josh Wolfe et al., Respondents–Respondents, Robert Paull et al., Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered December 21, 2020, which denied petitioner Cutri's motion to hold respondents in contempt of court and to compel compliance with a judgment, same court and Justice, entered November 10, 2015, confirming a final arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Petitioner Cutri failed to show that the judgment confirming the final arbitration award expressed an unequivocal mandate either requiring respondents to allow him to invest in future Lux Capital Group (LCG) funds or prohibiting respondents from proposing a buyout of LCG members and merging LCG into Lux Capital Management (see El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015] ). Although the arbitrators noted that they had based their decision in part on representations by the directors that included a pledge to allow LCG members to participate in future funds and that those commitments were binding, the pledges were made in the context of an acknowledgement by the directors that they could not guarantee that LCG members would receive any particular rate of “carry” and that all decisions had be taken in view of maximizing the potential success of the fund. No language in the award mandated any particular action on the part of the directors, and the concluding section of the award, which dismissed petitioners' claims, did not include any of the language from the section on the future of LCG.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1399 8
Decided: June 03, 2021
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)