Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank

271 A.D.2d 341, 706 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4360

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 341 (Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 271 A.D.2d 341, 706 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered November 16, 1999, which granted plaintiff’s motion to (1) enjoin defendant Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank (RKB) from continuing to prosecute an action filed against plaintiff and Rossiyskiy Kredit Securities, B.V. (RKS) in Moscow, Russia; (2) order RKS to consent to vacate the attachment issued in the Russian action “arresting” plaintiff’s assets and an injunction restraining RKB from making any payments to plaintiff; and (3) enjoin RKB and RKS from commencing any other action or proceeding in connection with their rights or obligations under the Medium Term Note Program, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly granted the relief requested. Indeed, there was a clear and overwhelming showing that the Russian action, which arises out of the same transaction at issue in the instant case, was obviously designed solely to frustrate any recovery plaintiff might obtain in this action. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered November 16, 1999, which granted plaintiff’s motion to (1) enjoin defendant Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank (RKB) from continuing to prosecute an action filed against plaintiff and Rossiyskiy Kredit Securities, B.V. (RKS) in Moscow, Russia; (2) order RKS to consent to vacate the attachment issued in the Russian action “arresting” plaintiff’s assets and an injunction restraining RKB from making any payments to plaintiff; and (3) enjoin RKB and RKS from commencing any other action or proceeding in connection with their rights or obligations under the Medium Term Note Program, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly granted the relief requested. Indeed, there was a clear and overwhelming showing that the Russian action, which arises out of the same transaction at issue in the instant case, was obviously designed solely to frustrate any recovery plaintiff might obtain in this action. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 341, 706 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/credit-agricole-indosuez-v-rossiyskiy-kredit-bank-nyappdiv-2000.