Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank
New York Court of Appeals
94 N.Y.2d 541, 708 N.Y.S.2d 26, 729 N.E.2d 683 (2000)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Credit Agricole Indosuez and two other banks (collectively, Credit) (collectively, plaintiffs) lent $30 million to Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank (Rossiyskiy) (defendant). Credit sued Rossiyskiy and others (defendants) on the loans when Rossiyskiy failed to repay them. In addition, Credit alleged that Rossiyskiy breached its purported fiduciary duty to Credit to preserve Rossiyskiy’s assets by transferring certain assets to another bank. With respect to its fiduciary-duty claim, Credit requested a preliminary injunction pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 6301 and a permanent injunction prohibiting Rossiyskiy from transferring any additional assets. The supreme court granted the requested preliminary injunction. The appellate division affirmed. Rossiyskiy appealed, arguing that § 6301 did not permit preliminary injunctive relief to preserve assets to pay an expected judgment. Credit responded that § 6301 did permit a preliminary injunction here because, among other things, Credit sought permanent injunctive relief. Credit further argued that even if, as currently interpreted, § 6301 did not permit a preliminary injunction, the court of appeals should adopt a more liberal interpretation of § 6301 in light of New York’s central role in the modern capital markets.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Levine, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
