HARCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ETC., plf-res, v. HARCH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., ETC., def-ap, HARCH CLO I LIMITED, ETC. def

12232-12233. HARCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ETC., plf-res, v. HARCH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., ETC., def-ap, HARCH CLO I LIMITED, ETC. def — White Fleischner & Fino LLP, New York (Jared T. Greisman of counsel), for ap — Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C., Austin, TX (David C. Mattka of the bar of the State of Texas, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about February 15, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Harch Capital Management Inc.'s (HCM) counterclaim for indemnification, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 22, 2013, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff Harch International Limited's (HIL) motion to release funds and denied HCM's cross motion to renew its indemnification claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

12232-12233. HARCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ETC., plf-res, v. HARCH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., ETC., def-ap, HARCH CLO I LIMITED, ETC. def — White Fleischner & Fino LLP, New York (Jared T. Greisman of counsel), for ap — Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C., Austin, TX (David C. Mattka of the bar of the State of Texas, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about February 15, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Harch Capital Management Inc.’s (HCM) counterclaim for indemnification, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 22, 2013, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff Harch International Limited’s (HIL) motion to release funds and denied HCM’s cross motion to renew its indemnification claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A bench trial was held in September 2011 at which time the court tried HIL’s breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims, and HCM’s counterclaim for indemnity. Each party was provided with a full opportunity to introduce evidence and raise all legal arguments. Among other things, each side raised the issue of what should happen with the certain funds that JPMorgan Chase Bank held in trust and had deposited with the court. HIL sought release of these monies based upon the terms of the Collateral Management Agreement (CMA), whereas HCM sought indemnity and the right to the funds based upon a Subadvisory Agreement. In its February 15, 2013 decision and order, the court dismissed HIL’s remaining claims against HCM. The court also denied HCM’s indemnity counterclaim. Subsequently, HIL brought a motion for the release of monies from the court’s registry; HCM opposed that motion and cross moved to, among other things, renew the decision after trial. In its order dated October 21, 2013, the court granted HIL’s motion for the release of funds and denied HCM’s cross motion.

HARCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ETC., plf-res, v. HARCH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., ETC., def-ap, HARCH CLO I LIMITED, ETC. def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal