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)
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?