Starwood Entities definition
Examples of Starwood Entities in a sentence
Guarantor and the Intermediate Starwood Entities shall not enter into any amendment, supplement or modification to any Interest Rate Protection Agreement without the prior written consent of Buyer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.
The Court addresses them in the reverse order presented by the Starwood Entities, since the first logical issue is whether any discovery is appropriate under Section 1782, and the second issue is whether that discovery should be limited.
As price rises, quantity demanded falls and quantity supplied rises.
Id. On September 19, 2022, the Starwood Entities filed their Motion.
Nevertheless, the Starwood Entities contend that “[d]iscovery regarding the votes at issue is available in the Austrian [p]roceedings” and that it would be a “poor exercise of discretion” to grant Petitioner’s Section 1782 Application when the “relevant discovery from the parties is available in the Austrian [p]roceedings.” See Motion [D.E. 6 at 13] (quotation marks and citationsomitted).
To the extent that the Starwood Entities object to the scope of any particular request, it is incumbent upon the Starwood Entities to specify which request and explain why it imposes an undue burden.
The Starwood Entities argue that Petitioner has not satisfied the first and third statutory factors set forth in Section 1782, namely: that Petitioner is an “interested person” within the meaning of Section 1782; and that the documents and testimony requested are “for use in” the Austrian proceedings.
On March 23, 2023, the Starwood Entities filed their Objections, arguing that Judge Otazo-Reyes erred in rejecting their arguments in support of their Motion to Vacate or Quash.
ECF No. [24] at 11.In their Objections, the Starwood Entities first complain that Magistrate Judge Otazo- Reyes failed to squarely address their argument that the tribunal and nature of the Austrian proceedings do not support the requested discovery.
In one, for example, the Starwood Entities assert that the R&R “also erred in concluding that the first and third Section 1782 criteria are met here and that Intel Factor 1 does not weigh against having granted the Ex Parte Application.” ECF No. [25] at 9 n.5. Such conclusory assertions fail to “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with,” Schultz, 565 F.3d at 1360, and are devoid of “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla.