IMPALA PLATINUM HOLDINGS LIMITED v. A-1 SPECIALZED SERVICES & SUPPLIES, INC., 2:16-cv-01343

Background

Plaintiffs Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd. and Impala Refining Services Ltd. won a jury verdict against defendant Ashok Kumar (and others) under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act; judgment was about $16 million.
Kumar and Alliance Industries moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter the judgment and requested a stay of execution; the court granted a temporary stay pending resolution of that motion.
The court solicited submissions on whether security should be required to continue the stay; Impala requested that assets of A-1 (in which Alliance has a secured interest) be held as security for Kumar’s personal judgment.
Kumar opposed using A-1’s corporate assets to secure his personal judgment and argued an unsecured stay is permissible pending the Rule 59(e) decision; he alternatively asked that the stay be lifted if security were required.
The court found Kumar’s proffered financial evidence insufficient to justify an unsecured stay and identified a strong policy against unsecured stays after the post-trial-motions filing period.
The court ordered that to maintain the stay Kumar must either consent to the suggested security or post a $13 million supersedeas bond; otherwise the stay will be lifted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a stay pending resolution of Rule 59(e) must be secured	Impala: Rule 62(b) and policy require security; A-1 assets subject to Alliance’s security interest should secure Kumar’s judgment to prevent asset flight	Kumar: Rule 62(b) allows unsecured stay; his personal assets suffice and corporate assets of Alliance shouldn’t secure his personal liability without consent	Court: Security required; unsecured stay not justified given inadequate proof of Kumar’s ability to pay
Whether the court may condition a stay on using A-1 corporate assets to secure a personal judgment	Impala: Court should order A-1 assets (subject to Alliance’s lien) set aside as security for Kumar’s personal liability	Kumar: Inappropriate to force corporate assets (Alliance/A‑1) to secure his personal judgment absent consent; if security required, lift stay	Court: Directed Kumar to agree to Impala’s proposed security or post bond; did not analyze in detail corporate-law limits but required security nonetheless
Adequacy of Kumar’s financial showing to avoid security	Impala: Kumar’s single, unverified statement is insufficient	Kumar: The in-camera statement and trial knowledge of his assets justify an unsecured stay	Court: Financial showing insufficient; comparable precedents require stronger proof
Appropriate amount/type of security to maintain stay	Impala: Security equal to judgment plus interest using A-1 assets	Kumar: Objected generally; preferred no security or lifting of stay	Court: Ordered a $13 million supersedeas bond (or agreement to Impala’s proposed security) as reasonable

Key Cases Cited

None of the opinion’s primary authorities are cited with official reporter citations in the opinion; the court relied chiefly on Rule 62 and on unpublished/WL decisions addressing stays and supersedeas bonds.