Stark Master Fund Ltd et al v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC

Filing 96

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 11/17/2015 GRANTING 83 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
STARK MASTER FUND Ltd. and
STARK GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES
MASTER FUND, Ltd.,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-

Case No. 14-C-689

CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC,
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES USA, Inc.,
APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT LLC, and
APOLLO MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS, L.P.
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
The plaintiffs, Stark Master Fund Ltd. and Stark Global Opportunities
Master Fund Ltd., collectively referred to as “Stark,” allege that the
defendants, Credit Suisse Securities, Deutsche Bank Securities, Apollo Global
Management and Apollo Management Holdings, misrepresented the nature of
the financing for a proposed merger between Huntsman Corporation and
Momentive Specialty Chemicals, Inc. f/k/a Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc..
On April 9, 2015, the Court granted Stark’s motion for leave to conduct
jurisdictional discovery. Stark now moves to compel discovery responses from
Credit Suisse.
Credit Suisse argues that the disputed requests seek irrelevant
information.

For

example,

Stark

seeks

information

concerning

the

Hexion/Huntsman merger and the financing by Credit Suisse and Deutsche
Bank. Credit Suisse objected that Stark’s request “was not relevant to any
theory of jurisdiction covered by the Court’s order.” This objection contravenes
the Court’s order granting leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery in the first
instance. By objecting in this manner, Credit Suisse invited further litigation
on a settled issue in this case. The defendants must accept the Court’s ruling
and proceed accordingly.
Credit Suisse also argues that Stark failed to meet and confer before
moving to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). To the contrary, Stark sent a detailed
letter explaining the deficiencies in Credit Suisse’s discovery responses. After
conferring by telephone, Credit Suisse supplemented its responses, but
continued to object to providing any information about its solicitations and
sales to Wisconsin investors except for the MatlinPatterson sale. At that
point, it wasn’t necessary for Stark to bang its head against the wall any
longer. Credit Suisse made its position known, and Stark’s only avenue for
relief was to file a motion to compel.
Stark’s motion to compel [ECF No. 83] is GRANTED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 17th day of November, 2015.

SO ORDERED:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-2-