Vale International S.A. et al, No. 1:2020mc00199 - Document 45 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY FOR USE IN FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 denying as moot 22 Letter Motion for Oral Argument; granting 1 Motion for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings. Petitioner's discovery application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is GRANTED. Petitioner is hereby authorized to serve its proposed subpoenas by July 24, 2020, if it has not served them already. (Se e ECF 23). If any Respondent seeks to file a motion to quash or a motion for a protective order, it must do so by July 31, 2020, and must follow this Court's Individual Practices in doing so. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close ECF 1. The Clerk is also directed to close ECF 22 as moot pursuant to this decision. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 7/20/20) (yv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Vale International S.A. et al Doc. 45 Case 1:20-mc-00199-JGK-OTW Document 45 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x : : In re Application of Vale S.A., Vale Holdings : B.V., and Vale International S.A. for an Order : Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct : Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings : : : : : 20-mc-199 (JGK) (OTW) ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY FOR USE IN FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 -------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: I. Introduction On April 24, 2020, Vale S.A., Vale Holdings B.V., and Vale International S.A. (collectively, Vale submitted an Ex Parte Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings (together with all supporting papers, the Appli atio . The Application seeks discovery from several entities and individuals1 which are alleged to have received funds derived from a scheme involving mining rights to a large iron mountain located in the Republic of Guinea. The discovery is to be used in proceedings pending 1 The entities and individuals can be generally divided into two groups associated with separate joint ventures entered into with Beny Steinmetz, a defendant in the foreign proceeding. The first group is alleged to be associated with Ziel Feldman, the founder and principal of HFZ Capital Group. These individuals and entities are: HFZ Capital Group LLC, Ziel Feldman, Helene Feldman, Feldman Family 2007 Trust, Nir Meir, John Shannon, Kenneth Henderson, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Chatsworth Realty 340 LLC, HFZ 344 West 72nd Street Owner LLC, Chatsworth Realty Corp., 215 Chrystie LLC, HFZ 40 Broad Street LLC, HFZ Highline Property Owner LLC, HFZ Highline Retail Owner LLC, HFZ Highline LLC, HFZ 501West LLC, 20 West 40 Bryant Park Owner LLC, HFZ Bryant Park Owner LLC, Tarpley Belnord Corp., Perfectus Real Estate Corp., HFZ 235 West 75th Street Owner LLC, HFZ 301 West 53rd Street Owner LLC, HFZ 88 Lexington Avenue Owner LLC, HFZ 90 Lexington Avenue Owner LLC, HFZ KIK 30th Street Owner LLC, HFZ West 30th Street Partners LLC, HFZ KIK 30th Street LLC, HFZ KIK 30th Street Mezzanine LLC, 76 Eleventh Avenue Property Owner LLC, and Fine Arts NY LLC. The second group is alleged to be associated with Aby Rosen, the founder of RFR Holding LLC. These individuals and entities are: RFR Holding LLC, Aby Rosen, R&S Chrysler LLC, and RFR Realty LLC (the two groups collectively, ‘espo de ts . 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-mc-00199-JGK-OTW Document 45 Filed 07/20/20 Page 2 of 9 in the United Kingdom the E glish P o eedi gs before the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Cou ts of E gla d a d Wales, Co e ial Cou t QBD the High Cou t agai st parties2 that allegedly participated in fraudulently inducing Vale to invest in the mining project, the rights to which were obtained through bribery and corruption and later cancelled by the Guinean government. Vale alleges that its money was then used by Defendants to invest in real estate in the United States via the Respondents. O May , , espo de t Fi e A ts NY LLC Fi e A ts filed a oppositio to Petitio e s application. (ECF 15). On June 8, 2020, Nysco, a defendant in the High Court proceedings, likewise opposed the Petitioners application. (ECF 25). On June 10, 2020, respondents RFR Holding LLC, RFR Realty LLC, R&S Chrysler LLC, and Aby Rosen (collectively, ‘F‘ joined in Nys o s oppositio . ECF . Having considered the application and related briefing, the Court finds that the requirements of Section 1782 are met. II. Background The application stems from claims that Defendants were behind a scheme to gain valuable mining rights by bribing government officials in the Republic of Guinea, and fraudulently induced Petitioner to pay $500 million to enter into a joint venture with Beny Steinmetz Group ‘esou es Li ited B“G‘ , and to invest an additional $746 million to develop the mining concessions. (See ECF 2; ECF 3-36; ECF 3-37). Defendants are comprised of Steinmetz, the founder and principal of BSGR; Nysco, which wholly owned BSGR; Balda, which 2 The defendants in that proceeding are: Benjamin Steinmetz, Dag Lars Cramer, Marcus Struik, Asher Avidan, Joseph Tchelet, David Clark, the Balda Fou datio Balda , a d Nys o Ma age e t Co po atio Nys o togethe , the Defe da ts . 2 Case 1:20-mc-00199-JGK-OTW Document 45 Filed 07/20/20 Page 3 of 9 wholly owned Nysco; and other individual defendants who were senior executives of BSGR at the time Vale s payments were made. (ECF 2 at 10; ECF 3-37). Before entering into the agreement, Vale had conducted substantial due diligence and required BSGR and Steinmetz to certify that they did not engage in bribery. (ECF 2 at 7; ECF 3-36). BSGR, Steinmetz, and other Defendants made repeated representations that the rights were legally acquired and that [BSGR] had not used any undisclosed consultants or intermediaries, and that it had disclosed all material documents and information concerning the mining concessions. (Id.) After a later investigation revealed that the mining rights had been procured by bribery and corruption, the Go e e t of Gui ea ithd e B“G‘ s i i g li e ses i Ap il 2014. (ECF 2 at 8; ECF 3-37). As a result of the withdrawal, Vale initiated arbitration against BSGR at the London Court of International Arbitration the A it atio , lai i g da ages fo f audule t misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and frustration. (ECF 2 at 8; ECF 3-36). In April 2019, the arbitral tribunal found BSGR liable for the fraudulent conduct and awarded Vale more than $2 billion in damages, interests, and costs. (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Vale filed enforcement proceedings in the United Kingdom and the United States, and its petitions in both countries were granted. (ECF 2 at 8-9; ECF 3-38; ECF 3-39; ECF 3-40; ECF 3-41). Vale has been unable to recover the full award. (ECF 2 at 9). In anticipation of formal proceedings, Vale filed an application in the High Court for a worldwide freezing order against all Defendants in November 2019. (ECF 2 at 9). In December 2019, the application was granted. (ECF 3-42). In the subsequent formal proceedings that form the basis for this application, Vale alleged that Defe da ts ea h ade f audule t misrepresentations and entered into a conspiracy for the purpose of inducing Vale to enter into 3 Case 1:20-mc-00199-JGK-OTW Document 45 Filed 07/20/20 Page 4 of 9 the joi t e tu e ith B“G‘. ECF at -10; see also ECF 3-37). Vale seeks $1.264 billion in damages plus interest in addition to making a proprietary claim under English law, which would allow Vale to trace and recover the proceeds of the fraud received by Defendants. (ECF 2 at 10; ECF 3-37). The proprietary claim alleges that each of the Defendants received a portion of the $500 million payment made to BSGR. (ECF 3-37). Vale then filed the instant application here to obtain discovery for use in that proceeding, alleging that Respondents may have received proceeds of the fraud. (ECF 1). In May 2020, Nysco and Balda filed an application for summary judgment in the High Court seeki g dis issal of Vale s p op ieta y lai . ECF III. -2). Discussion a. Legal Standard Under 28 U.S.C. § , [t]he dist i t ou t of the dist i t i hi h a pe so esides o is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal. 3 Section 1782 has been read to impose three statutory requirements: (1) that the person from whom discovery is sought reside (or be found) in the district of the district court to which the application is made, (2) that the discovery be for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal, and (3) that the application be made by a foreign or internatio al t i u al o a y i te ested pe so . See In re Edelman, 295 F.3d 171, 175-76 (2d Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (quoting In re Esses, 101 F.3d 873, 875 (2d Cir. 1996)). O e a dist i t ou t is assu ed that it has ju isdi tio over the petition, it may grant discovery under § 1782 in its discretion. Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 895 F.3d 238, 244 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Mees v. Buiter, 793 F.3d 291, 3 A motion seeking discovery under §1782 is a non-dispositive motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). See In re Hulley Enterprises, Ltd., 358 F. Supp. 3d 331, 340-41 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (collecting cases). Nor does a §1782 discovery request fall under the excepted motions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 4 Case 1:20-mc-00199-JGK-OTW Document 45 Filed 07/20/20 Page 5 of 9 297 (2d Cir. 2015)). The Supreme Court has outlined four factors that the district court should consider when determining whether to exercise its discretion to grant §1782 discovery. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004). A court should look at (1) whether the target of discovery is a participant in the foreign proceeding, (2) the nature of the foreign tribunal and its receptiveness to U.S. federal court assistance, (3) whether the application is atte pti g to i u u duly i t usi e o e t fo eig p oof-gathe i g est i tio s, a d hethe the e uest is u de so e. See id. at 264-65. b. Statutory Requirements The parties do not dispute that the first and third statutory requirements of § 1782 are met. Respondents reside or may be found in the Southern District of New York, and Vale is an i te ested pe so ithi the ea i g of § e ause they a e pa ty to the p o eedi gs pending in the High Court. As to requirement two, Respondent Fine Arts and Defendant Nysco assert that Petitioner has not met the requirement that the discovery be for use in a foreign or international tribunal. Determining whether this requirement is met requires the court to fo us[] on two questions: (1) whether a foreign proceeding is adjudicative in nature; and (2) he the e is a tually a fo eig p o eedi g. Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1998). The fo use e ui e e t ust e a alyzed a o di g to the pa ti ula fa ts of each case. In re Gorsoan Ltd., 435 F. Supp. 3d 589, 596-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (citing In re Accent Delight Int’l Ltd., 869 F.3d 121, 131 (2d Cir. 2017)). The Cou t, ho e e , eed ot o side eithe the dis o e a ility o the ad issi ility of [the e uested] e ide e i the 5 Case 1:20-mc-00199-JGK-OTW Document 45 Filed 07/20/20 Page 6 of 9 foreign proceedi gs. Id. at 597 (citing Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76, 82 (2d Cir. 2012)). 4 To satisfy the foreign proceeding use requirement of § 1782, Vale must establish that the dis o e y is fo at 259, a d a fo eig p o eedi g ithi easo a le o te platio , Intel, 542 U.S. that the fo eig p o eedi g is adjudi ati e i 27. A adjudi ati e p o eedi g is o e he e a t i u al atu e, Euromepa, 154 F.3d at ust de ide the e its of the dispute. Jiangsu Steamship Co. v. Success Superior Ltd., No. 14-cv-9997 (CM), 2015 WL 3439220, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2015). Fine Arts asserts that Vale s p op ieta y lai is a e fo e e t a tio , a d thus ot adjudi ati e u de Euromepa.5 (ECF 15 at 5, 12). The Court disagrees. The proprietary claim is not seeking to enforce the arbitration award against BSGR. Indeed, Vale s applications for enforcement of the arbitral award – filed in both the SDNY and the UK – have already been granted. (ECF 3-38; ECF 3-39; ECF 3-40; ECF 3-41). Further, the High Court proceedings involve separate claims against a different set of defendants. (ECF 3-37). The Arbitration involved claims against BSGR while the High Court case involves claims against Steinmetz, Cramer, Struik, Avidan, Tchelet, Clark, the Balda Foundation, and Nysco, none of which were parties to the Arbitration. (See ECF 3-36; ECF 3-37). Each of these parties is u e tly o testi g Vale s lai s i the High Court. Accordingly, as there has been no decision 4 Nysco also argues that because the High Court may grant a pending summary judgment motion as to the proprietary claim the dis o e y sought i this Appli atio a ot e used i the Lo do P o eedi gs at this ti e [and] it is possible that the evidence sought here may never be submitted before the London Cou t at all. ECF at 16). Nysco cites no authority for the requirement that a dispositive motion in a foreign court must be resolved before a § 1782 application may be granted, nor do principles of comity require this Court to hold a properly-filed motion in abeyance until a decision abroad is rendered. 5 “pe ifi ally, Fi e A ts a gues that that p o eedi g o stitutes a post-adjudicative foreign enforcement proceeding[ ] . . . he e the e its of [the] o t o e sy ha e al eady ee de ided y the fo eig t i u al. ECF 15 at 12-13) (citing In re MT BALTIC SOUL Produktentankschiff-Ahrtsgesellschaft mgH & Co. KG, 2015 WL 5824505, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2015) (further citations omitted)). 6 Case 1:20-mc-00199-JGK-OTW Document 45 Filed 07/20/20 Page 7 of 9 on the liability of Defendants regarding either the fraud claims or the proprietary claim, and thus no judgment concerning Defendants, the Court finds that the UK proceedings satisfy the second requirement. c. Intel Factors As articulated above, before a §1782 application is granted, Petitioner must also satisfy the discretionary factors laid out in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. The Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of granting the Application. The first discretionary factor evaluates whether the discovery is sought from a party ithi the fo eig t i u al s ju isdi tio al ea h. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 264 (noting that if foreign proceedings can order production, §1782 is not necessary). Here, the Respondents are not parties to the UK proceedings and all reside or are found in the United States. Second, the High Cou t ould e e epti e to this Cou t s assista e and there is no evidence to the contrary. See e.g., Intel, 542 U.S. at 262; In re Application of Gorsoan Ltd. & Gazprombank OJSC for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 13mc-397 (PGG), 2014 WL 7232262, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2014); In re Application of Guy, No. M 19-96, 2004 WL 1857580, at *2, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2004). Third, the Application is not an attempt to circumvent limitations on disclosure or discovery in the English proceedings. The fourth discretionary factor asks the Court to consider whether the discovery requests a e u duly i t usi e o u de so e. Intel, 542 U.S. at 265. Under Rule 45 of the Fede al ‘ules of Ci il P o edu e, [ ]hethe a su poe a i poses a u due u de depe ds on such factors as relevance, the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the document, the time period covered by it, the particularity with which the documents are 7 Case 1:20-mc-00199-JGK-OTW Document 45 Filed 07/20/20 Page 8 of 9 des i ed a d the u de i posed. Koch v. Pechota, No. 10-cv-9152, 2012 WL 4876784, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2012) (quoting Night Hawk Ltd. v. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P., No. 03-cv-1382 (RWS), 2003 WL 23018833, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) (citations and quotations omitted)). Fine Arts argues that the Application was made in bad faith and thus should be denied in its entirety. (ECF 15 at 14-17). If a appli ation under section 1782 is made in bad faith . . . the court is free to deny the application in toto[.] Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095, . d Ci . proceeding[,] [this] . If [a] e uest [] appears only marginally relevant to the foreign ay i e tai ases suggest that the appli atio is ade i ad faith [o ] fo the pu pose of ha ass e t. Mees, 793 F.3d at 299 n.10. Fine Arts has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate bad faith on the part of Vale. See In re Gorsoan Ltd., 435 F. Supp. 3d at 603 (placing burden for proving bad faith on party opposing Section 1782 application) (citing In re Hansainvest Hanseatische Investment-GmbH, 364 F. Supp. 3d 243, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)), appeal docketed, No. 20-678 (2d Cir. Feb. 21, 2020). Although it is ot Vale s burden to demonstrate good faith, it has provided submissions sufficient to show relevance for purposes of discovery. Therefore the Court is not concerned that the discovery is being sought in bad faith. See also In re WinNet R CJSC, No. 16-mc-484 (DLC), 2017 WL 1373918, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2017) (observing that courts exercise discretion to deny § 1782 applications o ly i u usual ases . Moreover, Fine Arts may still challenge particular requests under Rule 26 et seq. of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any local civil rules governing discovery, although the Court strongly discourages further letter-writing campaigns. 8 Case 1:20-mc-00199-JGK-OTW Document 45 Filed 07/20/20 Page 9 of 9 IV. Conclusion Fo the fo egoi g easo s, Petitio e s dis o e y appli atio pu sua t to U.“.C. § 1782 is GRANTED. Petitioner is hereby authorized to serve its proposed subpoenas by July 24, 2020, if it has not served them already. (See ECF 23). If any Respondent seeks to file a motion to quash or a motion for a protective order, it must do so by July 31, 2020, and must follow this Court’s Individual Practices in doing so. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close ECF 1. The Clerk is also directed to close ECF 22 as moot pursuant to this decision. SO ORDERED. s/ Ona T. Wang Ona T. Wang United States Magistrate Judge Dated: July 20, 2020 New York, New York 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
