07/09/2013 18:48 FAX

Chrysler Center
666 Third Avenue
MINTZ LEVIN
New York, NY 10017
JUDGE ROBERT p, PATIERSON 212-935-3000
Gilbert A. Samberg I 212692 6804 I gasamberg@mintz.com
212-983-3115 fax
www.mintz.com
July 9,2013


USOCSDNY
. I
Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr.
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 2550
New York, New York 10007-1312
DOCUMENT
ElECTRONICALLY I;{LED
\ 4liijjJ
Re: Trondheim Capital Pariners, L.P. and Michael Meixler v.
Sun tech Power Holdings Co., Ltd.! No. 13 Civ. 4668 (RPP) (OF)
Dear Judge Patterson:
We represent defendant Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd. (USuntech") in the
above-referenced action, which Plaintiffs commenced in state court with a Motion for
Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint. See New York CPLR 3213. Suntech
removed the case to this Court on July 8,2013, and we understand that Suntech's
deadline to submit opposing papers is July 15, 2013. We request an extension of that
deadline to August 15, 2013. We have made no prior request for an extension,
Defendant's agent was served with plaintiffs' motion papers on or about June 12.
My firm was engaged by Suntech on Friday, June 28. As a courtesy, I called plaintiffs'
counsel, Jay Teitelbaum, on Tuesday, July 2, to inform him that we had just recently
been engaged, that we intended to remove the case to federal court, and that we would
be asking him for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' state law motion.
On Monday July 8, I again called Mr. Teitelbaum as a courtesy to inform him that
we had filed that day to remove the action to Federal Court, and I requested an
extension of the time to respond to plaintiffs' motion, Mr. Teitelbaum informed me today
(July 9) that his clients will not consent to an extension. He indicated that he felt that
Suntech did not have an excuse for "further delay," and that "plaintiffs are prejudiced
every day that they are not paid," In all, it should be clear to the Court that there is no
legitimate reason for plaintiffs' refusal of a common courtesy. especially in these
circumstances.
Plaintiffs claim allegedly stems from a default on a $575,000,000 issue by
Suntech of Convertible Senior Notes due March 15.2013 (the "Securities"). Plaintiffs
together claim to have beneficial interests amounting to less than 0.1 % of that issue.
Assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiffs indeed have an interest in the
Securities, anyone qualified to invest in such a complex debt security would appreciate
that he does not hold a simple IOU such as might be suitable for consideration by
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P .C.
BOSTON I LONDON I Los ANGELES I NEW YORK I SAN DIEGO I SAN FRANCISCO STAMFORD I WASHINGTON i
Case 1:13-cv-04668-RPP Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 2
07/09/2013 18:49 FAX MINTZ LEVIN I4J 003/003
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.e.
Hon. Robert P. Patterson, Jr.
July 9, 2013
Page 2
means of the unusual New York State law Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of
Complaint. The operative terms of the debt securities in this case are contained in a
small mountain of documents, including 40 pages of Convertible Senior Note terms and
forms, a Trust Indenture of 105 pages, an Offering Circular of 200 pages, a Registration
Rights Agreement of 35 pages, and etc.
Furthermore, the alleged default occurred only a few months ago, plaintiffs allege
only money damages, and, notably, plaintiffs' alleged claim (for less than 0.1 % of the
face amount of the security issue) is the only one that has been brought to suit by any
alleged investor in the Securities.
In sum, there will be no unfair prejudice to plaintiffs if defendant is given the
requested time to prepare a response to their motion in lieu of a pleading. Every
plaintiff wishes to dispense with the "legalities" and "formalities" of having to face a
defense to its claim. That is not an excuse for the ungentlemanly lack of courtesy that
necessitated this application.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the Court extend Suntech's time to submit
papers in opposition to plaintiffs' Motion to Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint to
Thursday, August 15, 2013, and also that the Court set whatever deadline it deems
appropriate for plaintiffs' submission of a reply, if any.
/
cc: Teitelbaum & Baskin, LLP
Attn: Jay Teitelbaum, Esq. (via email)
Case 1:13-cv-04668-RPP Document 2 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 2