OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Pentacon BV (“Pentacon”) and Baltisse NV (“Baltisse,” and collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action seeking redress for the harm they suffered as a result of an alleged scheme to seize their interests in Defendant Origis USA LLC (“Origis USA”), a solar power start-up, and resell those interests at a significant profit. On March 25, 2024, the Court issued an Opinion and Order (the “MTD Order”) granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) that was filed by Defendants Guy Vanderhaegen; Guy Vanderhaegen Revocable Trust (“GVR Trust”); Pelican Invest, LLC (“Pelican Invest”); and Pelican International, LLC (“Pelican International,” and collectively, the “Vanderhaegen Defendants”), and granting in full the motion to dismiss that was filed by Defendant Origis USA (together with the Vanderhaegen Defendants, “Defendants”). See generally Pentacon BV v. Vanderhaegen, — F. Supp. 3d —, No. 23 Civ. 2172 (KPF), 2024 WL 1255992 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2024). Two weeks after the MTD Order was issued, Plaintiffs and the Vanderhaegen Defendants filed separate motions seeking reconsideration of the MTD Order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3. In brief, Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its dismissal of a subset of Plaintiffs’ claims against Origis USA, in view of certain factual allegations and legal authority that Plaintiffs claim the Court overlooked. The Vanderhaegen Defendants, for their part, ask the Court to reconsider its finding that New York law, and not Belgian law, governs the existence and scope of any fiduciary duties that the Vanderhaegen Defendants owed to Plaintiffs. In the alternative, the Vanderhaegen Defendants ask that the Court certify that portion of the MTD Order for interlocutory appeal. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies both motions in full. BACKGROUND1 The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural histories of this litigation and incorporates by reference the facts set forth in the MTD Order. (See generally Dkt. #51 (“MTD Order”)). The Court summarizes below only the facts essential to the adjudication of the instant motions. A. Factual Background Origis Energy LLC (“Origis Energy,” formerly Origis Energy NV), a solar energy start-up, was founded in Belgium in 2008. (AC 6). Defendant Vanderhaegen ran its day-to-day business operations. (Id. 7). In order to build its U.S. business, Origis Energy formed Defendant Origis USA, which thereafter served as the operating subsidiary for all of Origis Energy’s U.S. activity; the two entities “functioned as a single business under Vanderhaegen’s command and control.” (Id.
7, 52). Plaintiffs Pentacon and Baltisse each came to hold approximately 29 percent of Origis USA. (Id. 52). Origis USA quickly became a leading renewable energy developer in the United States, with a strong development pipeline of solar energy and energy storage projects. (AC 53). Importantly, Vanderhaegen, as its President and CEO, exercised effective control over all material information about the business, including the flow of that information to Plaintiffs. (Id.
