Looks like Terry threw in the towel; filed yesterday.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNTS I, II AND III OF ITS COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Greensill Capital (UK) Limited (“Greensill”), hereby submits this reply in further support of its motion for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 50 and 51] as to Counts I, II and III of its Complaint [ECF No. 1] against Defendants, Tempus Intermediate Holdings, LLC (“Tempus”), Jack Gulbin (“Gulbin”) and B. Scott Terry (“Terry”) (collectively, “Defendants”). In their respective oppositions [ECF Nos. 56 and 57], which are identical, Defendants do not challenge the grounds for awarding Greensill summary judgment on these claims and instead focus entirely on whether Greensill may recover its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection therewith. Judgment as a matter of law should thus be entered in Greensill’s favor on each of these claims with damages awarded accordingly.
To be clear, Defendants do not contest Greensill’s entitlement to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs in this case, just that Greensill has not yet proven the amount of the fees and costs that it is entitled to recover in connection therewith. Nevertheless, Greensill explained during the August 22, 2018 hearing on the motion to withdraw filed by counsel for Tempus and Terry that in the interest of judicial economy and to avoid wasting resources, Greensill is willing to: 1) forego the attorneys’ fees and costs that it is entitled to recover under the Guaranty Agreement; and 2) accept interest at the Virginia statutory rate of 6% per year, rather than the higher rate of interest to which Greensill is entitled under the Customer Agreement and the Forbearance Agreement.2 Greensill, therefore, requests that the Court enter a damage award in its favor totaling $10,951,897.10, comprised of the $9,658,224.34 principal balance owed by Defendants under the Customer Agreement, Guaranty Agreement and Forbearance Agreement and the $1,293,672.76 in interest accrued since Defendants’ default in May 2016.3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and in Greensill’s summary judgment motion and supporting memorandum, Greensill respectfully requests that the Court: 1) grant Greensill summary judgment on Counts I, II and III of its Complaint; 2) enter final judgment in favor of Greensill and against Defendants on Counts I, II, III and IV of its Complaint and award Greensill damages in the total amount of $10,951,8979.10; and 3) grant Greensill any other or additional relief deemed just and proper.
AI
