| JPM Chase
Discouraged in Tesla Case From Moving for
Judgment on Elon Musk Tweet
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
Book
BBC-Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
NY
Mag
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
May 4 – In JP
Morgan Chase's lawsuit against
Tesla, about Elon Musk's tweet
saying he would take Tesla
private, the bank asked to
file a motion for judgment on
the pleadings.
On May 4
U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Paul G. Gardephe
convened an in-person
proceeding, which Inner City
Press attended and live
tweeted it.
Judge Gardephe said, in
essence, that Chase's claim is
not susceptible to judgment on
the pleadings. He is entering
a case management plan and
will meet again with the
parties in 90 days - pending
letter(s) from the parties.
Inner City Press' live tweeted
#MaximumMusk thread:
Judge Gardphe:
Tesla has asserts a
counter-claim. JPM Chase has
filed a pre-motion letter
seeking to file a motion for
judgment on the pleading. I
don't think the case is
appropriate for that. Expert
discovery will be needed.
Judge
Gardephe: I asked JPM Chase to
let me know if in a week if,
despite what I've said, they
desire to file the motion and
why.
Judge Gardephe:
The agreements do not define
commercially-reasonable
methods.... Musk tweeted, "Am
considering taking Tesla
private... funding
secured."
[Funny to be
transcribing this on Twitter,
for which Musk also says,
seemingly with basis, "funding
secured"]
Judge
Gardephe: Tesla published a
blog post attributed to Musk
reversing position. JPM Chase
revised the strike price after
the blog post, and gave Tesla
notice of the adjustment.
Tesla objected to both.
Tesla seeks a declaration that
JPM Chase violated its duty.
Judge
Gardephe: JPM Chase says it is
entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law. Assuming arguendo
that the tweet constituted an
"announcement event" under the
agreement - I will focus on
whether JPM Chase can show it
was commercially reasonable as
a matter of law
Judge
Gardephe: Expert testimony on
what is commercially
reasonable in the industry is
likely necessary. Tesla
disputes the reasonableness of
Chase's methodology.
Judge
Gardephe: This issue not
susceptible to judgment on the
pleadings. [Citing a State
Street case before the 2d
Circuit in 2013]. Chase cited
a case that does not turn on
commercial reasonableness.
Judge
Gardephe: I do not believe
that a motion for judgment on
the pleadings is productive.
So I intend to answer a case
management plan. I will meet
with you again in about 90
days time to make sure
discovery is proceeding.
Chase's lawyer: I respectfully
disagree
JPM Chase's
lawyer [from David Polk] This
is a unique case. Usually
answers say very little, But
here Tesla made counter
claims, and so asserted
facts. [Judge Gardephe
has already read out his view,
so it's not clear how
effective this presentation is
going to be Judge Gardephe:
Sorry, we have a jury out, I
got a note [in Hezbollah case
of US v. Saab, which Inner
City Press is covering here
- as well as a Lebanese money
laundering case with a
proposed suretor from JPM
Chase in Tampa, here
Tesla / Musk's
lawyer from Quinn
Emanuel : This case isn't
subject to judgment on the
pleadings. Full disclosure:
Quinn Emanuel, pro bono, has
written to UN (and
emailed the US State
Department ) seeking to get
Inner City Press back into UN
- no answer, video Q here.
Judge
Gardephe: I haven't rule per
se. I look for a letter from
JPM Chase, the defense [Telsa]
could put in a letter too.
Inner City Press is tracking
the docket. Watch this site.
The case is
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association,
London Branch v. Tesla, Inc., 21-cv-9441
(Gardephe)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a
month helps keep us going and grants you
access to exclusive bonus material on our
Patreon page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
