Civil litigation in the context of mergers, acquisitions, tender offers and the like is a breed unto itself, where stakes can be high, deadlines can be imminent and decisive, strategies can be complex, impenetrable, or protean.
So it can be that a plaintiff files a lawsuit it never truly wished to file and a defendant may resist dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit, because, the dust having settled, there’s some angle, some potential for payback, some unfinished business before the parties go their separate ways. (Or, to put it another way, sometimes “heat of the moment” litigation backfires as the aggressor becomes the defender and vice-versa. (Cf. Compucredit.))
In Mathstar v. Tiberius Capital II LLC, Tiberius Capital II made a tender offer for Mathstar’s outstanding shares, Mathstar had other plans (a merger with Sajan), the entities launched into multi-forum litigation. Now Mathstar would like to call off the party but Tiberius would like to conduct some discovery before allowing Mathstar’s dismissal. The case is before U.S. District Court Judge Ann Montgomery (D. Minn.).
Perhaps in keeping with the backwards nature of the proceeding, Plaintiff, the movant, has taken the position that its request to dismiss the case can be decided on the papers, defendant insists that oral argument is warranted. The Court has allowed for 10 minutes per side of oral argument.