On November 15, 2016 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Trojan Maritime Inc.,
and
Tpg Sixth Street Partners, Llc, F K A Tpg Special Situations Partners, Llc,
for Commercial - Contract
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
The GrayBar Building 1599 Post Road East
420 Lexington Ave., Suite 300 Westport, CT 06880
New York, NY 10170 (203) 256-8600 – Phone
(212) 490-6050 – Phone (203) 255-5700 - Phone
(212) 490-6070 - Fax (203) 256-8615 – Fax
(203) 255-5702 - Fax
January 2, 2020
Hon. Carol Ruth Feinman
Part 28
111 Centre Street
Courtroom 1127A
New York, NY 10013
Re: Trojan Maritime Inc. v. TPG Special Situations Partners, LLC
Index No. 655978/2016
LMP ref: 3589
Dear Justice Feinman,
We represent the Plaintiff, Trojan Maritime Inc. (“Trojan”), in the above-referenced
action, which was tried by the Court on October 3 and October 21, 2019. The parties
subsequently submitted post-trial briefs on December 13, 2019. The Court set January 21, 2020
as an appearance date for rendering a decision.
In its post-trial brief, Defendant TPG Special Situations Partners, LLC (“TPG”), has
argued that the parties modified the subject Term Sheet to provide for a cap of $225,000 in
transaction expenses and waiver of the condition that each party would bear its own due
diligence expenses until RBS signed a settlement agreement. TPG’s argument, however, is
directly contradicted by the direct testimony of Trojan’s witness, Mr. Notias, who had first-hand
knowledge of all of the parties’ negotiations and discussions. Mr. Notias provided unrebutted
testimony that the RBS settlement condition stated in the Transaction Expenses section of the
Term Sheet was never waived or modified. By contrast, TPG has presented no evidence to
support its assertion that Trojan waived the RBS settlement agreement condition – and only
offered testimony of its only witness, Mr. Ditter, who admitted he had no first-hand knowledge
of the negotiations and discussions between the parties’ principals and whose testimony
consisted almost entirely of hearsay and conjecture. Furthermore, TPG did not raise
modification as a proposed fact to be proven at trial. See TPG’s Proposed Facts To Be Proven
At Trial (Doc. No. 151).
The post-trial briefing schedule did not provide for the parties to submit reply briefs.
Based on the foregoing, Trojan requests leave to file by January 10, 2019 a succinct reply brief
addressing TPG’s modification argument of not more than 5 double spaced pages.
Very truly yours,
Patrick F. Lennon
PFL/bhs
Rosanne E. Felicello, Esq.
Felicello Law
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, NY 10036
[2]
Document Filed Date
January 02, 2020
Case Filing Date
November 15, 2016
Category
Commercial - Contract
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
The GrayBar Building 1599 Post Road East 420 Lexington Ave., Suite 300 Westport, CT 06880 New York, NY 10170 (203) 256-8600 – Phone (212) 490-6050 – Phone (203) 255-5700 - Phone (212) 490-6070 - Fax (203) 256-8615 – Fax (203) 255-5702 - Fax January 2, 2020 Hon. Carol Ruth Feinman Part 28 111 Centre Street Courtroom 1127A New York, NY 10013 Re: Trojan Maritime Inc. v. TPG Special Situations Partners, LLC Index No. 655978/2016 LMP ref: 3589 Dear Justice Feinman, We represent the Plaintiff, Trojan Maritime Inc. (“Trojan”), in the above-referenced action, which was tried by the Court on October 3 and October 21, 2019. The parties subsequently submitted post-trial briefs on December 13, 2019. The Court set January 21, 2020 as an appearance date for rendering a decision. In its post-trial brief, Defendant TPG Special Situations Partners, LLC (“TPG”), has argued that the parties modified the subject Term Sheet to provide for a cap of $225,000 in transaction expenses and waiver of the condition that each party would bear its own due diligence expenses until RBS signed a settlement agreement. TPG’s argument, however, is directly contradicted by the direct testimony of Trojan’s witness, Mr. Notias, who had first-hand knowledge of all of the parties’ negotiations and discussions. Mr. Notias provided unrebutted testimony that the RBS settlement condition stated in the Transaction Expenses section of the Term Sheet was never waived or modified. By contrast, TPG has presented no evidence to support its assertion that Trojan waived the RBS settlement agreement condition – and only offered testimony of its only witness, Mr. Ditter, who admitted he had no first-hand knowledge of the negotiations and discussions between the parties’ principals and whose testimony consisted almost entirely of hearsay and conjecture. Furthermore, TPG did not raise modification as a proposed fact to be proven at trial. See TPG’s Proposed Facts To Be Proven At Trial (Doc. No. 151). The post-trial briefing schedule did not provide for the parties to submit reply briefs. Based on the foregoing, Trojan requests leave to file by January 10, 2019 a succinct reply brief addressing TPG’s modification argument of not more than 5 double spaced pages. Very truly yours, Patrick F. Lennon PFL/bhs Rosanne E. Felicello, Esq. Felicello Law 1140 Avenue of the Americas 9th Floor New York, NY 10036 [2]