Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Puda Coal Inc PUDA

Puda Coal, Inc. (Puda) is a supplier of high-grade metallurgical coking coal to the industrial sector in the People’s Republic of China (the PRC or China). Its processed coking coal is primarily purchased by coke and steel producers for the purpose of making the coke required for the steel manufacturing process. Puda’s operations are conducted by Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co., Ltd (Shanxi Coal), which it controls through 90% indirect equity ownership. Puda cleans raw coking coal sourced from third-party coal mines primarily located in Liulin County, Shanxi Province, and markets the cleaned, coking coal to coke and steel makers. Its primary geographic markets include Shanxi Province, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Hebei Province, Beijing and Tianjin, China. It purchases raw coal from a diversified pool of local coal mines in Shanxi Province.


GREY:PUDA - Post by User

Post by coldheaton Apr 08, 2014 9:54pm
137 Views
Post# 22427801

Reversal of opinion, Trellus motion to intervene

Reversal of opinion, Trellus motion to intervene
Full docket text for document 347: ORDER: For these reasons, the Court vacates its prior decision and grants Trellus's motion to intervene due to "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move" to amend the initial decision. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). Plaintiffs had previously been unable to obtain the document "despite due diligence," United States v. IBT, 247 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir. 2001), because the Court had granted a stay of merits discovery pertaining to Macquarie before ruling on its summary judgment motion. Furthermore, this evidence was "of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome" of the denial of intervention. Id. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 60(b), this Court vacates the portion of the October 1, 2013 opinion denying Trellus's motion for intervention. (ECF No. 263.) Trellus's motion to become a party plaintiff is GRANTED pursuant to several Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rules 15, 17, 19, and 21. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 4/7/2014) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:11-cv-02598-KBF et al. ***Docketed in all member and related cases pursuant to instructions from Chambers.(mro)
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>