Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 76

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Joel Menkes, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Stolt-Nielsen S.A., et al., Defendants. No. 3:03-CV-409 (DJS) October 30, 2006

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE REGARDING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY In light of certain recent developments described below, Defendants respectfully submit the following notice concerning their Motion to Stay Discovery in the above-captioned action: 1. On October 27, 2006, Defendants filed a reply memorandum ("Reply") supporting their pending Motion to Stay Discovery in this matter. In their Reply (at 6-7), Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' concern that the petition for writ of certiorari that the corporate Defendants filed in connection with another proceeding might unduly slow the progress of criminal proceedings against the corporate Defendants and Mr. Cooperman. 2. This morning, October 30, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the corporate Defendants' petition for certiorari from the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Ex. 1, at 13). As Defendants previously informed the Court, the certiorari petition addressed the Third Circuit's ruling that Separation of Powers principles required that the corporate Defendants be indicted before they could seek to enforce their rights under the Amnesty Agreement. 3. As a result, it is now clear that Supreme Court review of the Separation of Powers issues surrounding the Third Circuit's ruling will not impede the progress of the criminal matter.

Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 76

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 2 of 3

Defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment in the criminal matter will be fully briefed by the end of January 2007 and heard in February 2007, as described in the Reply (at 7). 4. Finally, for the reasons set forth in Defendants' opening memorandum and Reply, the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States in no way diminishes Defendants' arguments for a stay of discovery. Indeed, it eliminates a principal concern of Plaintiffs regarding the possibility that Supreme Court review of the Separation of Powers issues could delay the criminal proceedings (and, ultimately, these proceedings). Respectfully submitted, Defendants Stolt-Nielsen S.A., Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group Ltd., Jacob Stolt-Nielsen, Niels G. Stolt-Nielsen, Samuel Cooperman and Reginald J.R. Lee

By: Michael P. Shea (ct19598) Jason S. Weathers (ct24579) Day, Berry & Howard LLP City Place I 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103-3499 Tel: (860) 275-0356 Fax: (860) 275-0343 E-Mail: [email protected]

/s/ Jaime M. Crowe Christopher M. Curran (ct22743) J. Mark Gidley (ct18450) Peter J. Carney (ct24721) Jaime M. Crowe (ct25657) 701 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 626-3600 Fax: (202) 639-9355 E-Mail: [email protected]

2

Case 3:03-cv-00409-DJS

Document 76

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on October 30, 2006, a copy of the foregoing Defendants' Notice Regarding Motion to Stay Discovery was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.

By:

/s/ Jaime M. Crowe Jaime M. Crowe (#ct25657) 701 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 626-3600 Fax: (202) 639-9355 [email protected]