FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/15/ :55 PM INDEX NO /2012 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 509 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2018

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ROBERT E. WILSON III, New York County v. Plaintiff-Appellant, Index No /2012 DANIEL VALENTE DANTAS; OPPORTUNITY EQUITY PARTNERS, LTD.; OPPORTUNITY PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT EQUITY PARTNERS, L.P.; OPPORTUNITY INVEST II, INC., Defendants-Respondents. (" Plaintiff-Appellant" Plaintiff-Appellant Robert E. Wilson III ("Plaintiff-Appellant") submits this Pre- Argument Statement pursuant to Section (a), (b) of the Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department. 1. TITLE OF THE ACTION The title of the action is as appears above. 2. FULL NAMES OF THE PARTIES The full names of the parties are as appear above. The Defendants-Respondents are (" Daniel Valente Dantas ("Defendant-Respondent Dantas"), Opportunity Equity Partners, Ltd. ("OEP Ltd.") and Opportunity Invest II, Inc.("OI-II") (Defendant-Respondent Dantas, OEP Ltd. "Defendants-Respondents" and OI-II collectively, the "Defendants-Respondents"), which are represented by counsel. Opportunity Equity Partners, L.P. is not represented in this action. Originally, Citibank, N.A., International Equity Investments, Inc., Citigroup Venture Capital International Brasil, L.L.C., and Citigroup Venture Capital International Brasil, L.P., were, but are no longer, parties of this action. 3. NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT I 1 of 5

2 K&L Gates LLP Martin F. Gusy Matthew J. Weldon 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York (212) Lankford & Reed PLLC Terrance G. Reed (pro hac vice) 120 North St. Asaph St. Alexandria, VA (703) Langrock, Sperry & Wool LLP Peter Langrock (pro hac vice) 111 S. Pleasant Street P.O. Box 351 Middlebury, Vermont (802) NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Philip Korologos 575 Lexington Avenue, 7t¹¹ Floor New York, New York (212) COURT FROM WHICH APPEAL IS TAKEN Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Commercial Division. 6. NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE CASE Legal and equitable claims arising out of Plaintiff-Appellant's and Defendants- Respondents' joint venture 7. RESULT REACHED IN THE COURT BELOW AND ORDER APPEALED FROM This is an appeal from the Memorandum Decision and Orders dated January 11, 2018 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 496 & 497) of the Honorable Charles E. Ramos, of New York County 2 of 5

3 Supreme Court, and duly filed with Notices of Entry in the Office of the New York County Clerk on January 17, 2018, granting motion (motion sequence number 10) for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and denying Plaintiff-Appellant's motion (motion sequence number 15) for partial summary judgment as to liability. 8. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The lower court's memorandum decision and order is erroneous as a matter of law, a bench trial is merited. The grounds for appeal include, but are not limited to: a. The lower court disregarded material disputes of fact meriting trial, including but limited to disputes regarding the existence of a fiduciary duty based upon a decade long course of conduct, Defendants-Respondents filing of a lawsuit claiming a joint venture and their membership therein, and Defendant-Respondent Dantas' Dantas deposition admission that he was in a partnership with Plaintiff-Appellant, Respondents' admissions in related federal litigation involving Citibank that they abandoned billions of dollars in the 2008 Settlement Agreement to prevent the continued criminal prosecution of Defendant-Respondent Dantas, Defendants-Respondents claim to have waived OEP's carried interest/profit participation claims in the 2008 Settlement Agreement and its effect on the joint venture, the scope of the joint venture (as was admitted by Defendants-Respondents in the related federal litigation) and the proceeds of the Vale claims. b. The lower court erred in granting summary judgment when discovery was incomplete, as Defendants-Respondents counsel admitted, including Defendants- Plaintiff- Appellant's filing of a renewed motion for sanctions, and the 3 of 5

4 admitted failure to produce thousands of responsive documents based upon unstated claims of privilege, notwithstanding prior disclosure orders. c. The lower court failed to follow the law of the case, and the mandate of the Court of Appeals and of the First Department by failing to apply rulings decided in favor of Plaintiff-Appellant, including: (i) upholding contractual claims despite a merger clause; (ii) upholding the existence of fiduciary duties arising out of Plaintiff-Appellant's and joint venture; (iii) upholding fraudulent concealment/constructive fraud claims due to proceed diversion; and (iv) upholding quasi-contractual claims, promissory estoppel claims and an equitable accounting claim as a matter of law. 9. RELATED ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS Defendant-Respondent Dantas is lead plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York action of Plaintiff Dantas et al. v. Citibank N.A. et al., Case No. 17 Civ (JMF), claiming, a.o., that in association with unwinding Plaintiff-Appellant's and Defendants-Respondents joint venture he was allegedly coerced to forego billions in profits in the 2008 Settlement Agreement in order to induce Citibank not to continue the criminal prosecution of Defendant-Respondent Dantas in Brazil. Dated: New York, New York February 15, 2018 K&L GATES LLP By: /s/ Martin F. Gusy Martin F. Gusy Matthew J. Weldon 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY (212) of 5

5 LANKFORD & REED PLLC Terrance G. Reed (pro hac vice) 120 N. St. Asaph St. Alexandria, VA (703) LANGROCK, SPERRY & WOOL LLP Peter Langrock (pro hac vice) 111 S. Pleasant Street Middlebury, VT Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Robert E. Wilson IH TO: BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Philip C. Korologos 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY raaax (212) awe >ann Via NYSCEF Attorneys for the Opportunity Defendants-Respondents 5 of 5