In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities Litigation

S.D. New York

In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities Litigation

DecidedFebruary 25, 2021

Docket1:17-cv-01580

StatusUnknown

This text of In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities Litigation (In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities Litigation, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X : 17 Civ. 1580 (LGS) IN RE CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY :

N.V. SECURITIES LITIGATION. : : ORDER ------------------------------------------------------------- :

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:

WHEREAS, the parties have submitted letters (Dkt. Nos. 260, 261) addressing Defendants’ request to amend their answers to raise two defenses arising out of a bankruptcy proceeding against Defendant Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, N.V.’s successor entity. See In re McDermott Int’l Inc., No. 20-30336 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.), and the Court stated that it would address that request in its opinion on Defendants’ summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 299). WHEREAS, leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This permissive standard is consistent with [the court’s] strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits.” Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208, 212–13 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Travelex Currency Servs., Inc. v. Puente Enterprises, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 3d 385, 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). WHEREAS, permitting amendment in this case would not be futile and would not result in undue delay, prejudice or surprise, given that the defenses arise out of the bankruptcy plan issued and under interpretation in the Texas bankruptcy proceeding, of which all parties are undisputedly aware. See Christians of Cal., Inc. v. Clive Christian N.Y., LLP, No. 13 Civ. 0275, 2014 WL 3605526, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2014). It is hereby ORDERED that by March 10, 2021, Defendants shall file amended answers raising the defenses identified in their September 24, 2021, letter (Dkt. No. 260). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 260. Dated: February 25, 2021 New York, New York .

LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X : 17 Civ. 1580 (LGS) IN RE CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY :

N.V. SECURITIES LITIGATION. : : ORDER ------------------------------------------------------------- :

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:

WHEREAS, the parties have submitted letters (Dkt. Nos. 260, 261) addressing Defendants’ request to amend their answers to raise two defenses arising out of a bankruptcy proceeding against Defendant Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, N.V.’s successor entity. See In re McDermott Int’l Inc., No. 20-30336 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.), and the Court stated that it would address that request in its opinion on Defendants’ summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 299). WHEREAS, leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This permissive standard is consistent with [the court’s] strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits.” Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208, 212–13 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Travelex Currency Servs., Inc. v. Puente Enterprises, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 3d 385, 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). WHEREAS, permitting amendment in this case would not be futile and would not result in undue delay, prejudice or surprise, given that the defenses arise out of the bankruptcy plan issued and under interpretation in the Texas bankruptcy proceeding, of which all parties are undisputedly aware. See Christians of Cal., Inc. v. Clive Christian N.Y., LLP, No. 13 Civ. 0275, 2014 WL 3605526, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2014). It is hereby ORDERED that by March 10, 2021, Defendants shall file amended answers raising the defenses identified in their September 24, 2021, letter (Dkt. No. 260). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 260. Dated: February 25, 2021 New York, New York .

LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities Litigation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chicago-bridge-iron-company-nv-securities-litigation-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack