Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1125

ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Sarah Leomir dated 4/24/2013 re: Counsel write on behalf of PricewaterCoopers Accountants N.V.in response to Headway Investment Corp.'s ("Headway") letter of April 22, 2013 requesting a pre-motion conference to renew its request to amend its complaint, by which Headway seeks, inter alia, to add PwC Netherlands as a defendant. This Court previously denied an identical request from Headway, as well as Headway's subsequent motion to reconsider. Because the Court's reasoning in both the April 13 and June 22 Orders forecloses Headway's current request, and Headway points to no new circumstances justifying the relief sought, PWC Netherlands respectfully requests that the Court deny Headway's request for a premotion conference as well as its request to amend the complaint. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of Court is directed to enter into the public record of this action the the letter above submitted to the Court by defendant PwC Netherlands. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 4/24/2013) (js)

Download PDF
04/24/2 (113 15. 51 FAA)X(--------~;;:;_;_;__;_~~-----------------HH&R LLP 17'/1 @0021003 Hushes Hubbard F,; ~ UP Hughes Hubbard One BaRer, Puk Pb.:u. NewYod; N~Yorlc 10004-1482 Tc:.IcpboAe.: 212.837-6000 F.x:2t2-422~726 h~hubbard.com Sarah Looalis C_ Direct OW: 21z,,8J7·6S59 CIl".ugb.cshubbud.co~ April 24, 2013 BY FAX TO (212) 805-6382 Honorable Victor Marrero United States District Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 -1312 Re: Anwar, et ai. v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited, et aI., 09-cv-118 (VM)(THK) Dear Judge Marrero: We "Mite on behalfofPricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N.V. (UPwC Netherlands',), in response to Headway Investment Corp.'s ("Headway") letter of April 22. 2013 requesting a pre-motion conference to renew its request to amend its complaint, by which Headway seeks, inter alia, to add PwC Netherlands as a defendant. 1bis Coun previously denied an identical request from Headway, as well as Headway's subsequent motion to reconsider. l Because the Court's reasoning in both the April 13 and June 22 Orders forecloses Headway's current request, and Headway points to no new circumstances justifying the relief sought, PWC Netherlands respectfully requests that the Court deny Headway's request for a pre­ motion conference as well as its request to amend the complaint. l-leadway's discussion ofits request to add PWC Netherlands is confined to Footnote 7 of its letter. The footnote contains no facts that the Court did not previously consider that could justify revisiting Headway's request. Headway asserts that its failure to add PWC Netherlands previousJy was a "clerical error." Headway made the identical argument in its previous motion. (Headway Investment Corporation's Mem. Of Law In Supp. Of Its Mot. For Leave To Amend CompI. ("Headway Mot") at 9, ECF 838 ("PwC Netherlands was mistakenly omitted from the Original Complaint").) Headway further argues that "there can be no prejudice 1 Decision and Order, Apr. 13,2012, ECF 853 ("Aprill3 Order"); Decision and Order, June 22. 2012, ECF 897 ("June 22 Order"). 04/24/2013 1552 FAX HH&R LLP 17'11 ~ 003/003 2 from joinder of PwC Netherlands, which need not lift a finger to respond to Headway's complaint until 'cousin' PwC Canada is required to, at some indeterminate time in the future." Again, Headway argued in its previous motion that there was no prejudice from joinder of PwC Netherlands. (Headway Mot. at 9 ("As to PWC Netherlands. there is absolutely-no evidence of bad faith, dilatory motive, or prejudicial delay."),) This Court has already considered and rejected both of these arguments, having found that adding PWC Netherlands to the complaint would directly contravene the Court's case management orders. (April 13 Order at 9,) This is true regardless of the timing of any response date, Furthermore, this Court found that Headway acted with "undue delay in seeking to amend the Headway... ComplaintD and there has not been a showing of good cause for that delay," noting in particular that Headway's additional claims "could have been asserted in the original Complaint[] and are not dependent upon evidence revealed in the course of discovery." (ld. at 8.) In its June 22 Order on Headway's motion for reconsideration, this Court stated that Headway has not "offered sufficient justification for adding ." PwC Netherlands ... as defendant[J," explaining that PwC Netherlands and other entities "were known to or easily could have been identified by Plaintiffs when the action was first filed." (June 22 Order at 12.) The Cowt's reasoning in the April 13 and June 22 Orders is equally applicable to Headway's current request. Accordingly, as Headway has failed to put forth any changed facts or law with respect to PWC Netherlands, Headway's request should be denied. Respectfully submitted, cc: Counsel for all parties (via email) i-H-(3 DATE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?