Re: pacemonitor Oral Orders Jan 03
in response to
by
Welcome to the Crystallex HUB on AGORACOM
Crystallex International Corporation is a Canadian-based gold company with a successful record of developing and operating gold mines in Venezuela and elsewhere in South America
Message: pacemonitor Oral Orders Jan 03
Lets hope Delaware is more helpful.
|
order Order Mon 01/03 9:44 AM ORAL ORDER: Having considered all the relevant filings (D.I. 404, 414, 416), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Adelso Adrianza's pro se motion to intervene (D.I. 404) is DENIED. The Court agrees with Crystallex that Adrianza's motion is largely "duplicative of his pending requests before the Delaware Bankruptcy Court." (D.I. 414 at 6) (capitalization modified) To the extent that Adrianza takes issue with proceedings before the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, those issues are not before this Court. Additionally, Adrianza's motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) is premised on the notion that the amount of Crystallex's judgment that remains to be collected has been improperly calculated. (See, e.g., D.I. 404 at 7) To establish a right intervene, Adrianza must show, among other things, that his interests are "not adequately represented by an existing party in the litigation." Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 596 (3d Cir. 1987). Adrianza has not shown that Crystallex does not adequately represent his interests. (See D.I. 416 at 9-10) Both Crystallex and Adrianza share the goal of "maximizing Crystallex's recovery" and promoting value for the shareholders, including Adrianza. (D.I. 414 at 10; see also id. at 11) ("Crystallex's dogged pursuit of Venezuela's assets in this case and other actions... speaks for itself.") Indeed, it is not even clear that Adrianza has any protectable interest in this litigation at all. See, e.g., In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 109 F. Supp. 273, 277 (D.N.J. 2000) (explaining that permitting shareholder to intervene would improperly restrict corporate decision-making), aff'd, 264 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2001). Moreover, Adrianza has not moved for permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). (See D.I. 414 at 8 n.4) But even if the instant motion were liberally construed to include such a request, the Court would deny it for similar reasons. ORDERED by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 1/3/22. (ntl) |
1 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply