Russo PLLC defeated plaintiffs’ contempt motion relating to expenditures for business renovations and payments to defendants’ counsel. Justice Schecter held that even if the renovations were outside the ordinary course of business, the decision to renovate was a matter of business judgment and did not violate any clear mandate, noting that plaintiffs did not request, and the Court did not impose, any limit on expenditures. In its November 13, 2020 decision, the Court further ruled that no conclusive proof of defendants’ alleged self-dealing was submitted, and similarly, that there was no evidence of payments to defendants’ counsel in violation of the court’s orders. Moreover, the Court denied plaintiffs advancement of their legal fees and found no basis for summarily awarding other relief sought by plaintiffs, noting that plaintiffs “are overreaching out of frustration with the failed settlement, which they blame on defendants,” but that relief cannot be granted without “more clarity, analytical precision, and, most importantly, legal support for relief requested.” Finally, Russo PLLC’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the Ginza and Sergeev defendants was granted. To see the decision, click here.