Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/278124502/Ampal-American-Israel-Corp-pdf
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:52:53+00:00

Document:
Counsel for Merhav Ampal Group, Ltd.
J. David Dantzler, Jr., Esq.
Ampal-American Israel Corporation (Ampal), commenced this action against Yosef A.
and grants the motion for summary judgment.
Court. See In re Ampal-American Israel Corp., No. 12-13689 (SMB), 2013 WL 1400346 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2013) (Ampal I); In re Ampal-American Israel Corp., 502 B.R. 361 (Bankr.
repeat only what is necessary to this decision.
acquisition of interests in businesses located in Israel. MAG, an Israeli corporation, is a whollyowned subsidiary of Ampal Energy, Ltd., which, in turn, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ampal.
the Financing Date, defined as the date on which MNF obtained third party debt financing.
Doc. # 14).) The Affidavit was also refiled with the motion for summary judgment in this adversary proceeding.
electronic docket in the main bankruptcy case.
Note and an agreement pledging MNFs shares in Ampal (the Pledge Agreement). (Id. at Art.
exhaust its remedies against MNF or any collateral before pursuing payment from Maiman. (Id.
parties apparently waived the expiration of the option when they executed the Option Exercise Agreement.
Option Exercise Agreement and the maturity date of the 2008 Note to December 31, 2011. (Ex.
appointed the Indenture Trustees to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.
(since April 25, 2002) and President and Chief Executive Officer (since October 1, 2006).
their assets but could instead exercise Ampals rights as the sole shareholder of the subsidiaries.
On July 14, 2014, MAG made a written demand on MNF for payment of the 2008 Note.
Shapiras involvement in this case is chronicled in more detail in Ampal III, 2015 WL 4510723, at *1-2.
resulted in Ampal failing to meet its debt service obligations under the debentures.
third party debt financing that Ampal required before closing on the Option Exercise Agreement.
Defendants Request for Discovery Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), dated Jan. 20, 2015 (Opposition) (ECF Doc.
Facts) (ECF Doc. # 21).
potential transactions, scuttling the BNDES deal and the Ampal option transaction as a result.
jurisdiction, and moreover, can enter a final judgment in light of the parties express consent.
Waterhouse & Co., LLP (In re Resorts Intl, Inc.), 372 F.3d 154, 16263 (3d Cir. 2004).
Related proceedings are those whose outcome might have a conceivable effect on the estate.
Publicker Indus., Inc. v. United States (In re Cuyahoga Equip. Corp.), 980 F.2d 110, 114 (2d Cir.
part on other grounds by Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 12425 (1995).
Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 308 n.6 (1995).
Concerning Subject Matter Jurisdiction, dated Feb. 20, 2015 (Defendants Jurisdiction Brief) (ECF Doc. # 26).
No. M10450, (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 1984), and following the Supreme Courts decision in Stern v.
Order of Reference, No. M10468, 12 Misc. 00032 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012).
Title 28 divides bankruptcy proceedings into core proceedings and non-core proceedings.
arise under title 11 or in a case under title 11. They arose before the bankruptcy under nonbankruptcy law. Instead, the question is whether they are related to Ampals bankruptcy case.
evidence that it exists.); Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 507 (2d Cir.
1994) (The burden of proving jurisdiction is on the party asserting it.).
related to the bankruptcy case. Kolinsky v. Russ (In re Kolinsky), 100 B.R. 695, 702 (Bankr.
where indemnity claim against the estate could conceivably affect distributions).
pay the debtors claim. On the other hand, the plaintiff may pay other debts or keep the money.
the debtor money would be virtually limitless.
God in Christ v. Parade Place, LLC (In re Parade Place, LLC), 508 B.R. 863 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
bankruptcy estates. Id. at 872.
debtors estate, it would not affect the debtors title to the subsidiarys stock. Id. at 416.
over MAGs other affiliated creditors. In any case, 16% of $10 million is still $1.6 million.
a Mexican litigation and compel arbitration of a dispute with a third party joint venturer.
bankruptcy case. Id. at 603.
Beck is still considered to be good law. Tower, 356 B.R. at 601 (collecting cases).
financial affairs, notices to creditors, or meetings of creditors.
Equity Broad. Corp. v. Shubert (In re Winstar Commcns, Inc.), 284 B.R. 40, 51 (Bankr. D. Del.
directly affect the distributions in this case.
can hear and determine MAGs claims and enter appropriate orders and judgments. 28 U.S.C.
no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 587.
The motion is governed by the amendments to Rule 56 that became effective on December 1, 2010.
amendments will not affect continuing development of the decisional law construing and applying these phrases.
FED. R. CIV. P. 56 advisory committees note (2010).
Commercial, LLC v. Rovner, 825 N.Y.S.2d 766, 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006).
572, 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002); see also HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. Street, 421 F.
by admissible evidence a triable issue of fact relating to a bona fide defense. AXA Inv., 890 F.
Supp. 2d at 381; E.D.S. Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Allyn, 691 N.Y.S.2d 567, 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999).
breach of guaranty. E.D.S., 691 N.Y.S.2d at 567.
issue relating to a bona fide defense.
agreement, determines whether or not the guaranty is absolute and conditional. AXA Inv., 890 F.
Supp. 2d at 384; South Side House, 470 B.R. at 675.
(N.Y. App. Div. 2008); Citibank N.A. v. Plapinger, 485 N.E.2d 974, 976-77 (N.Y. 1985).
burden on me to construct his legal argument for him. See Broad v. DKP Corp., No. 97 Civ.
2029 (LAP), 1998 WL 516113, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 1998), affd, 182 F.3d 898 (2d Cir.
1999) (unpublished opinion). I decline to do so and deem Maiman to have conceded the point.
obligation to perform. See Food Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Matrix Realty Grp., Inc. (In re Food Mgmt.
Grp., LLC), 372 B.R. 171, 192-93 (collecting cases).
Bondholders were defaming MNF and Maiman, it was up to MNF and Maiman to stop them.
the doctrine of frustration of purpose does not apply where one of the parties assumed the risk.
Fontana II, 484 N.Y.S.2d at 645.
was fulfilled when MNF received $20 million from Ampal. See Bank of Boston Intl of Miami v.
what efforts the affiant has made to obtain those facts, and why those efforts were unsuccessful.
Contl Cas. Co. v. Marshall Granger & Co., LLP, 921 F. Supp. 2d 111, 126-27 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
request to be an excuse to embark on a fishing expedition. Id.
and grants the motion for summary judgment. MAG is directed to settle an order on notice.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.