Altium Growth Fund, L.P. v Tingo Group, Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 32993(U) August 23, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 651910/2023 Judge: Andrew Borrok Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 651910/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 53 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, L.P., ALTO OPPORTUNITY INDEX NO. 651910/2023 MASTER FUND, SPC - SEGREGATED MASTER PORTFOLIO B, EMPERY ASSET MASTER LTD., EMPERY TAX EFFICIENT, L.P., EMPERY TAX MOTION DATE 03/25/2024 EFFICIENT Ill, L.P. MOTION SEQ. NO. 008 Plaintiff,
- V - DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC.,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
HON. ANDREW BORROK:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 242, 243, 244, 245, 260,261,262 ATTORNEY- were read on this motion to/for DISQUALIFY/RELIEVE/SUBSTITUTE/WITHDRAW
Upon the foregoing documents and for the reasons set forth below, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
(Greenberg)'s motion (Mot. Seq. No. 008) to withdraw as counsel for Tingo Group, Inc. f/k/a
MICT, Inc. (Tingo) is DENIED.
As discussed further below, Greenberg fails to meet its burden that withdrawal is appropriate at
this time because Altium Growth Fund, L.P., Empery Asset Master Ltd., Empery Tax Efficient,
L.P., Empery Tax Efficient III, L.P. (collectively, the Judgment Creditors) would be
substantially prejudiced by Greenberg's withdrawal in this lawsuit. (See Haskell v Haskell, 185
AD2d 333 [2d Dept 1992]). Among other things, Greenberg has been involved in this case since
inception and has made substantial representations about Tingo' s financial condition, its ability
to satisfy any potential judgment (before judgment was entered) and otherwise indicated that
651910/2023 ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, LP. ET AL vs. TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC. Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 008
1 of 6 [* 1] INDEX NO. 651910/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2024
Tingo was not absconding with assets from the jurisdiction. In their moving papers seeking
withdrawal they make no mention of how Tingo, a corporate defendant, would proceed and what
provision has been made for successor counsel to take over the case in a manner which would
avoid prejudice to the Judgment Creditors. Greenberg also fails to identify any fundamental
breakdown in the attorney-client relationship warranting withdrawal. This is plainly insufficient.
The Relevant Facts and Circumstances
As relevant, the Judgment Creditors brought this lawsuit on April 18, 2023 and, following
certain substantial motion practice in which Greenberg made certain representations to the Court
(including, among other things, facts as to Tingo's financial condition and its ability to satisfy
any judgment and whether Tingo was dissipating assets out of the jurisdiction), obtained an
$18,235,347.22 Judgment (the Judgment; NYSCEF Doc. No. 234, at 4). The Court retained
jurisdiction over this action with respect to the enforcement of the Judgment and any related
claims that may be brought against additional parties. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 234, at 5)
Following entry of the Judgment, Tingo was ordered to deposit with the County Clerk, a
sufficient number of shares of common stock to satisfy the Judgment and, within 48 hours of a
demand by the Judgment Creditors, to deposit an additional number of shares to the extent such
additional shares were necessary to maintain the value of the Judgment. To date, Tingo has not
made any payments to the Judgment Creditors (NYSCEF Doc. No. 247,J 2).
651910/2023 ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, LP. ET AL vs. TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC. Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 008
2 of 6 [* 2] INDEX NO. 651910/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2024
Subsequently, on March 12, 2024, the Judgment Creditors served an information subpoena on
Greenberg (Greenberg Information Subpoena) seeking information regarding Tingo's
financial situation. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 262).
Thereafter, on March 21, 2024, the Judgment Creditors informed Greenberg via email that the
Judgment Creditors intended to serve an information subpoena on Tingo pursuant to CPLR
Article 52 (Tingo Information Subpoena; NYSCEF Doc. No. 248), to compel Tingo to disclose
"all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the [J]udgment." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 249; CPLR §
5223).
On March 22, 2024, Greenberg provided objections and limited responses to the Greenberg
Informaton Subpeona and also filed the instant motion to withdraw (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 260 ,i
8,262). Among other things, Greenberg objected to the Greenberg Information Subpoena on the
grounds that "there is a more readily available source of information, e.g., from the public
domain or directly from [Tingo ]," and that the subpoena imposed on Greenberg "the burden to
conduct discovery on behalf of [Tingo ]" and "shift[ ed Tingo' s] responsibility to conduct their
own discovery to [Greenberg]." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 262 ,i,i 3-4); Subsequently, on April 17,
2024, Greenberg provided supplemental responses.
On March 25, 2024, the Judgment Creditors followed up with Greenberg about the Tingo
Information Subpeona. On March 27, 2024, Greenberg responded via email that it was "not
authorized to accept service of the [Tingo Information Subpoena]" and that it had "not been
651910/2023 ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, LP. ET AL vs. TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC. Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 008
3 of 6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 651910/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2024
retained to assist Tingo ... in connection with any post-judgment proceedings." (NYSCEF Doc.
No. 249).
The Judgment Creditors then served the Tingo Information Subpoena on Tingo and Tingo's
Interim Co-Chief Executive Officer Ken Denos (Mr. Denos) by certified mail and email,
respectively. (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 252,253,261). The Judgment Creditors informed Mr. Denos
that Greenberg had stated it had not been retained to assist Tingo with post-judgment
proceedings, that Tingo' s answers to the Tingo Information Subpoena were due by April 22,
2024, and that Tingo may return its answers electronically for its convenience (NYSCEF Doc.
No. 261). After Tingo failed to acknowledge the subpoena or to file its answer by the deadline,
the Judgment Creditors followed up with Mr. Denos by email on May 2, 2024.
When this too went unanswered, the Judgment Creditors sought an order from this Court on May
7, 2024, compelling Tingo's compliance with the Tingo Information Subpoena; The Court issued
the order requiring compliance on May 10, 2024. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 258). However, the next
day, and only after the Judgment Creditors sought the Court's intervention, Mr. Denos finally
responded to the Judgment Creditors, informing them that Tingo "does not have available staff,
infrastructure or resources to respond to [the Judgment Creditors'] requests," because "[a]ny
individuals ... that are assisting the company are doing so on part-time basis and without
compensation." (NYSCEF Doc. No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Altium Growth Fund, L.P. v Tingo Group, Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 32993(U) August 23, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 651910/2023 Judge: Andrew Borrok Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 651910/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 53 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, L.P., ALTO OPPORTUNITY INDEX NO. 651910/2023 MASTER FUND, SPC - SEGREGATED MASTER PORTFOLIO B, EMPERY ASSET MASTER LTD., EMPERY TAX EFFICIENT, L.P., EMPERY TAX MOTION DATE 03/25/2024 EFFICIENT Ill, L.P. MOTION SEQ. NO. 008 Plaintiff,
- V - DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC.,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
HON. ANDREW BORROK:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 242, 243, 244, 245, 260,261,262 ATTORNEY- were read on this motion to/for DISQUALIFY/RELIEVE/SUBSTITUTE/WITHDRAW
Upon the foregoing documents and for the reasons set forth below, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
(Greenberg)'s motion (Mot. Seq. No. 008) to withdraw as counsel for Tingo Group, Inc. f/k/a
MICT, Inc. (Tingo) is DENIED.
As discussed further below, Greenberg fails to meet its burden that withdrawal is appropriate at
this time because Altium Growth Fund, L.P., Empery Asset Master Ltd., Empery Tax Efficient,
L.P., Empery Tax Efficient III, L.P. (collectively, the Judgment Creditors) would be
substantially prejudiced by Greenberg's withdrawal in this lawsuit. (See Haskell v Haskell, 185
AD2d 333 [2d Dept 1992]). Among other things, Greenberg has been involved in this case since
inception and has made substantial representations about Tingo' s financial condition, its ability
to satisfy any potential judgment (before judgment was entered) and otherwise indicated that
651910/2023 ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, LP. ET AL vs. TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC. Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 008
1 of 6 [* 1] INDEX NO. 651910/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2024
Tingo was not absconding with assets from the jurisdiction. In their moving papers seeking
withdrawal they make no mention of how Tingo, a corporate defendant, would proceed and what
provision has been made for successor counsel to take over the case in a manner which would
avoid prejudice to the Judgment Creditors. Greenberg also fails to identify any fundamental
breakdown in the attorney-client relationship warranting withdrawal. This is plainly insufficient.
The Relevant Facts and Circumstances
As relevant, the Judgment Creditors brought this lawsuit on April 18, 2023 and, following
certain substantial motion practice in which Greenberg made certain representations to the Court
(including, among other things, facts as to Tingo's financial condition and its ability to satisfy
any judgment and whether Tingo was dissipating assets out of the jurisdiction), obtained an
$18,235,347.22 Judgment (the Judgment; NYSCEF Doc. No. 234, at 4). The Court retained
jurisdiction over this action with respect to the enforcement of the Judgment and any related
claims that may be brought against additional parties. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 234, at 5)
Following entry of the Judgment, Tingo was ordered to deposit with the County Clerk, a
sufficient number of shares of common stock to satisfy the Judgment and, within 48 hours of a
demand by the Judgment Creditors, to deposit an additional number of shares to the extent such
additional shares were necessary to maintain the value of the Judgment. To date, Tingo has not
made any payments to the Judgment Creditors (NYSCEF Doc. No. 247,J 2).
651910/2023 ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, LP. ET AL vs. TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC. Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 008
2 of 6 [* 2] INDEX NO. 651910/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2024
Subsequently, on March 12, 2024, the Judgment Creditors served an information subpoena on
Greenberg (Greenberg Information Subpoena) seeking information regarding Tingo's
financial situation. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 262).
Thereafter, on March 21, 2024, the Judgment Creditors informed Greenberg via email that the
Judgment Creditors intended to serve an information subpoena on Tingo pursuant to CPLR
Article 52 (Tingo Information Subpoena; NYSCEF Doc. No. 248), to compel Tingo to disclose
"all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the [J]udgment." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 249; CPLR §
5223).
On March 22, 2024, Greenberg provided objections and limited responses to the Greenberg
Informaton Subpeona and also filed the instant motion to withdraw (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 260 ,i
8,262). Among other things, Greenberg objected to the Greenberg Information Subpoena on the
grounds that "there is a more readily available source of information, e.g., from the public
domain or directly from [Tingo ]," and that the subpoena imposed on Greenberg "the burden to
conduct discovery on behalf of [Tingo ]" and "shift[ ed Tingo' s] responsibility to conduct their
own discovery to [Greenberg]." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 262 ,i,i 3-4); Subsequently, on April 17,
2024, Greenberg provided supplemental responses.
On March 25, 2024, the Judgment Creditors followed up with Greenberg about the Tingo
Information Subpeona. On March 27, 2024, Greenberg responded via email that it was "not
authorized to accept service of the [Tingo Information Subpoena]" and that it had "not been
651910/2023 ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, LP. ET AL vs. TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC. Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 008
3 of 6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 651910/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2024
retained to assist Tingo ... in connection with any post-judgment proceedings." (NYSCEF Doc.
No. 249).
The Judgment Creditors then served the Tingo Information Subpoena on Tingo and Tingo's
Interim Co-Chief Executive Officer Ken Denos (Mr. Denos) by certified mail and email,
respectively. (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 252,253,261). The Judgment Creditors informed Mr. Denos
that Greenberg had stated it had not been retained to assist Tingo with post-judgment
proceedings, that Tingo' s answers to the Tingo Information Subpoena were due by April 22,
2024, and that Tingo may return its answers electronically for its convenience (NYSCEF Doc.
No. 261). After Tingo failed to acknowledge the subpoena or to file its answer by the deadline,
the Judgment Creditors followed up with Mr. Denos by email on May 2, 2024.
When this too went unanswered, the Judgment Creditors sought an order from this Court on May
7, 2024, compelling Tingo's compliance with the Tingo Information Subpoena; The Court issued
the order requiring compliance on May 10, 2024. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 258). However, the next
day, and only after the Judgment Creditors sought the Court's intervention, Mr. Denos finally
responded to the Judgment Creditors, informing them that Tingo "does not have available staff,
infrastructure or resources to respond to [the Judgment Creditors'] requests," because "[a]ny
individuals ... that are assisting the company are doing so on part-time basis and without
compensation." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 261).
Discussion
The decision to grant or deny a motion to be relieved as counsel lies within the sound discretion
of the trial court ( Cashdan v Cashdan, 243 AD2d 598 [2d Dept 1997]). In order to "terminate the 651910/2023 ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, LP. ET AL vs. TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC. Page 4 of 6 Motion No. 008
4 of 6 [* 4] INDEX NO. 651910/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2024
relationship with a client," the moving counsel "must make a showing of good or sufficient cause
and reasonable notice." (George v George, 217 AD2d 913 [4th Dept 1995]). Greenberg fails to
meet its burden that withdrawal is appropriate at this time.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that a corporation must appear in a civil action by attorney.
(CPLR § 3219[a]). Greenberg has been counsel ofrecord in this action for Tingo since its
inception and has participated substantially on Tingo's behalf In its moving papers, Greenberg
fails to identify any substitute counsel or procedure for any substitute counsel for Tingo to be
brought up to speed such that the Judgment Creditor would not be prejudiced by its withdrawal.
To be clear, Greenberg's basis for withdrawal is that Tingo has an "unfulfilled obligation" -- 1e.,
it is owed money by Tingo (NYSCEF Doc. No. 243 ,i 3). However, the "mere fact that a client
fails to pay an attorney for services rendered does not, without more, entitle the attorney to
withdraw." (Kaufman v Kaufman, 63 A.D.3d 618 [1st Dept 2009]; see, e.g., Haskell, 185 AD2d
333 [holding that, although counsel had not been paid by its clients for one year as of the date
counsel filed its motion to withdraw, withdrawal was not warranted where "substitution of
counsel at this late date would have only further delayed resolution of [the] matter"]). As
discussed above, the moving papers make no mention of any provision for successor counsel or
otherwise adequately address how the Judgment Creditor would not be substantially prejudiced
by their withdrawal. This is plainly insufficient. Unquestionably, the Judgment Creditor would
be prejudiced. Thus, the motion is DENIED.
The Court has considered Greenberg's remaining arguments and finds them unavailing.
651910/2023 ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, LP. ET AL vs. TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC. Page 5 of 6 Motion No. 008
5 of 6 [* 5] INDEX NO. 651910/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2024
8/23/2024 DATE ANDREW BORROK, J.S.C.
~ ~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
651910/2023 ALTIUM GROWTH FUND, L.P. ET AL vs. TINGO GROUP, INC. F/K/A MICT, INC. Page 6 of 6 Motion No. 008
6 of 6 [* 6]