in the wind energy industry. In 2008, Trinity

entered into an agreement with Suzlon Wind under which Trinity agreed to manufacture, and

Suzlon Wind agreed to purchase, 900 80-meter wind towers at a rate of at least 300 per calendar

year for three years beginning in 2009 (the Tower Agreement). Suzlon Wind later sought to

modify and defer its purchase obligations under the Tower Agreement. As a result, the parties

revised the Tower Agreement twice, ultimately extending the term through 2013 and increasing

to 1,200 the total number of towers to be manufactured and purchased. Under the second

revision, effective January 14, 2010, Suzlon Wind agreed to purchase a total of 207 towers in

2010, 236 towers in 2011, 300 towers in 2012, and 300 towers in 2013. Instead, Suzlon Wind

purchased 59 towers in 2010 andSuzlon Wind.            These signatures, however, do not

demonstrate that Suzlon India was a party to the Tower Agreement. The agreements state that

they are between Trinity and Suzlon Wind, and directly above the signature lines for both Mehta

and Shekdar the agreements expressly state that both men signed on behalf of Suzlon Wind, not

Suzlon India. The agreements do not mention Suzlon India, nor do the agreements provide for

Suzlon India to have any rights or obligations. And in his affidavit filed in support of Suzlon

India’s special appearance, Shekdar attests that Suzlon India was not a party to the Tower

Agreement. As a result, we conclude that the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Suzlon

India was not a party to the Tower Agreement.

  