Defendant Royal Bank of Canada moves for leave to renew such part of its prior motion that sought an order pursuant to CPLR 327 dismissing or staying the action by plaintiff Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. for forum non conveniens in favor of an existing action between the parties pending in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, London, England.

The case details are set forth in this Court's decision dated January 31, 2003, and will not be repeated herein.

The grounds for renewal are the Judgment and the Order of the Honorable Mr. Justice Moore-Bick, both dated Thursday, 23 January, 2003, which determined that the plaintiff's application for a stay of that proceeding pending our determination, should be denied. Predictably, this Court denied the defendant's motion while the question of a stay was pending in the High Court of Justice. Armed with the denial of the stay there, defendant seeks renewal here.

Although the relief sought before Mr. Justice Moore-Bick

was in the nature of a stay as a matter of prudent case management, rather than forum non conveniens, many common issues were presented in these applications. Also predictably, both my colleague and I have reached similar conclusions. Neither of us deem a stay or dismissal to be warranted, each finding that valid reasons exist to find our respective jurisdictions have a sufficient relationship to the matters to be tried. The fact that these actions may each proceed to a final resolution does not require a finding that in the interest of substantial justice this action should be heard in another forum. Of significance is the connection this case has to the Enron Bankruptcy, particularly with regard to documents and witnesses.

This Court adopts Mr. Justice Moore-Bick's conclusion that as a practical matter, these actions will continue in parallel "unless and until the parties are able to agree upon some other solution or there is a change of circumstances that requires a stay of one or other of the actions." Counsel are invited to discuss possible resolution of our common dilemma at the next court conference.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion by defendant Royal Bank of Canada for an order of renewal is denied.

Dated: March 13, 2003_________________________

J.S.C.