HFTP Investments, L.L.C. v. Grupo Tmm, S.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

HFTP Investments, L.L.C. v. Grupo Tmm, S.A.

18 A.D.3d 369, 795 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5706

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

DecidedMay 26, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 369 (HFTP Investments, L.L.C. v. Grupo Tmm, S.A.) 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

HFTP Investments, L.L.C. v. Grupo Tmm, S.A., 18 A.D.3d 369, 795 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[370]*370Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered June 28, 2004, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, insofar as appealed from, declaring in plaintiff investors’ favor that, as provided in section 8 (f) of certain note linked securities (NLS) sold to plaintiffs by defendant company, defendant publicly announced pending, proposed or intended sales of “all or substantially all” of its assets, and thereby triggered plaintiffs’ right to an adjustment in the NLS Exercise Price and in the number of American Depository Shares of defendant acquirable upon exercise of the NLS, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s argument that the proposed sales involved its subsidiaries’ assets, not its own assets, and are therefore excluded from the operation of section 8 (f), is belied by defendant’s repeated references, in Securities and Exchange Commission filings and elsewhere, to the proposed sales as involving its own “indirect assets”; defendant’s loss of effective operational control over those assets that would result from the proposed sales without an exchange of like assets; and section 8 (g) of the NLS, the evident purpose of which is to protect plaintiffs against all manner of events that would dilute their interest in defendant or fundamentally change defendant’s nature.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[370]*370Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered June 28, 2004, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, insofar as appealed from, declaring in plaintiff investors’ favor that, as provided in section 8 (f) of certain note linked securities (NLS) sold to plaintiffs by defendant company, defendant publicly announced pending, proposed or intended sales of “all or substantially all” of its assets, and thereby triggered plaintiffs’ right to an adjustment in the NLS Exercise Price and in the number of American Depository Shares of defendant acquirable upon exercise of the NLS, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s argument that the proposed sales involved its subsidiaries’ assets, not its own assets, and are therefore excluded from the operation of section 8 (f), is belied by defendant’s repeated references, in Securities and Exchange Commission filings and elsewhere, to the proposed sales as involving its own “indirect assets”; defendant’s loss of effective operational control over those assets that would result from the proposed sales without an exchange of like assets; and section 8 (g) of the NLS, the evident purpose of which is to protect plaintiffs against all manner of events that would dilute their interest in defendant or fundamentally change defendant’s nature.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 369, 795 N.Y.S.2d 555, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hftp-investments-llc-v-grupo-tmm-sa-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack