Year: 2013

Federal Court of Appeals Judge Finds Joint Action by Noteholders “Procompetitive”
10.28.2013

The 11th Circuit rejected an attempt by a public company to resurrect its antitrust claims against Ross & Orenstein’s clients, who allegedly had refused to participate in a tender offer and jointly demanded par for their notes. In an opinion of considerable interest to holders of distressed notes, a concurring judge wrote that the noteholders were engaging in “negotiations” that were “procompetitive.” Akanthos Capital Management, LLC, et al. v. Alanticus Holdings Corp., No. 12-13467.

Award of Investment Banking Fee to Ross & Orenstein Client Sustained
09.17.2013

The New York Court of Appeals declined to allow a further appeal of the award of a $650,000 fee to Ross & Orenstein’s client, an investment banking firm. The defendant argued that the firm didn’t perform under the contract. The trial court’s award of the fee had been affirmed by the First Department. Trump Securities, LLC v. Purolite Co., No. 2013-734.

Noteholders Receive $8.8 Million Settlement in Charter Communications Dispute
04.16.2013

After two years of litigation over whether the company or its noteholders were entitled to the escrowed proceeds of a legal settlement obtained by Charter Communications and affiliates just before Charter’s mega-bankruptcy, Ross & Orenstein negotiated a resolution under which noteholders received one-third of the amount placed in escrow. Law Debenture Trust Co. of NY v. Charter Communications, Inc., Adv. Proc. 11-01267-jmp (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

New York Court Permits Ross & Orenstein Client’s Claims Against Carl Icahn to Proceed to Trial
01.29.2013

Our client, a significant minority shareholder in XO Holdings, Inc., sued to challenge a series of self-dealing transactions between XO and its majority shareholder, Carl Icahn, which transferred significant tax benefits from XO to other Icahn-controlled companies. Icahn and his affiliates moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the burden rested on Icahn to justify the transactions, and the case should proceed to trial on the question of whether the transactions were entirely fair. R2 Investments LDC v. Carl C. Icahn, Index No. 601296/2009 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.).