In Re: Adelphia Communication Corp.
Case Number: 1:2005cv09050
Filed: October 24, 2005
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge: Lawrence M. McKenna
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawl
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 157 Motion to Withdraw Reference
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 1, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 1356 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For reasons further set forth in said Order, the BankDefendants' motion for summary judgment of the Tort Claims on in pari delicto grounds is DENIED in its entirety. ORDER denying 1179 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna on 8/25/10) (db)
August 9, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 1345 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The second session of oral argument, scheduled for August 10, 2010 at 2:30-4:30 p.m. will be held, on the same date, at 1:00-3:00 p.m. (Signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna on 8/9/2010) (jpo)
December 21, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 1210 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the ART has not sustained its burden to show that it has standing to sue the Bank Defendants on behalf of ACC, and defendants motion, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, is granted. Rule 56 does not fit well with the issue of standing, which is a threshold issue that should be decided before proceeding further. It would not be appropriate to leave standing as a trial issue, even if there were material issues of fact as to standing. Both sides' motions for summary judgment are therefore denied as moot, in view of the Court's decision under Rule 16. The Bank Defendants' motion for an order striking the damages report of the ART's expert, Dr. Bernheim, is denie d. The Court has considered it in the effort to see all of the facts that might be relevant to standing, understanding, of course, that, to the extent the report may be understood to express or imply an opinion on a legal issue, that opinion cannot be considered, since experts cannot testify as to domestic law. (Signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna on 12/21/09) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:03-md-01529-LMM-RLE, 1:05-cv-09050-LMM-RLE(rjm)
July 30, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 1094 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This Memorandum and Order responds to the parties various letters seeking dismissal of the repled Claim 31 of the Second Amended Complaint submitted by the Adelphia Recovery Trust (ART) on July 15, 2009. This Court withholds judg ment on the issues raised in the various parties letters but will allow the parties to address the issues at summary judgment...The parties in their summary judgment submissions should respond to the revised Claim 31 submitted by ART on July 15, 2009 . This Memorandum and Order is not to be understood as passing judgment on any arguments raised in the letters submitted by ART or the Margin Loan Defendants. The summary judgment schedule set by this Court at its July 17, 2009 status conference remains in place as set forth in this order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna on 7/30/2009) (jmi)
July 29, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 1077 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Claim 32 is dismissed against Fuji, Rabobank and TD Texas. Leave to replead is granted as to the allegations against Fuji and Rabobank if the parties can identify specific evidence of tying arrangements in violation of the BHCA. The ML Capital and RBS motions for dismissal are DENIED. (Signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna on 7/27/2009) (jpo)
July 1, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 1050 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The objecting defendants have not shown that Judge Ellis' decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, see 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (A), and it is affirmed, and the objection overruled... and as further set forth. (Signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna on 7/1/09) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:03-md-01529-LMM-RLE, 1:05-cv-09050-LMM-RLE(rjm)
June 16, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 1028 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 988 Motion for Reconsideration. The court requires that ART submit a revised version of paragraph 1359 of the Amended Complaint within 30 days. The revised paragraph should label the source of the alleged fraudulent conveyances made to the four margin lenders. The source of the alleged fraudulent conveyances will be identified as coming from ACC or an Obligor Debtor. Denying 1002 Motion for Reconsideration. (Signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna on 6/15/09) (cd)
May 5, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 981 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' 12 (b) (6) motions for dismissal are GRANTED as to Claim 54. Defendants' 12(b) (6) motions are DENIED as to Claims 31, 37, and 38. Defendants' 12(b) (6) motions are GRANTED a s to Claim 55 ~ 1572 (i), (ii), (iii) as to the Agent Banks, (v), (vi), (vii), (viii); ~ 1573(iii), (iv), (vi). Defendants' 12 (b) (6) motions are DENIED as to Claim 55 ~ 1572 (iii) as to the Investment Banks, (iv), (ix); ~ 1573 (i), (ii), (v). SO ORDERED. SO ORDERED.(Signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna on 5/4/2009) (tve) Modified on 5/13/2009 (tve).
April 21, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 972 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The Bank Defendants object to an order of February 11, 2009 of Magistrate Judge Ellis to the extent that the order denied their motion for an order compelling the Adelphia Recovery Trust ("ART") to produce all withheld testifying expert materials from Adelphia Communications Corp. v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, a case (now settled) that was pending in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. The Court concludes that Bank Brussels remains correct , and that Judge Ellis properly applied it here. The objecting parties have not shown that his decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, see 28 U. S. C. § 636 (b) (1) (A), and it is affirmed, and the objection overruled. (Signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna on 4/21/09) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:03-md-01529-LMM-RLE, 1:05-cv-09050-LMM-RLE(rjm)
February 11, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 942 OPINION AND ORDER:97066 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the record should reflect resolution of the following: 1) Defendants Motion for Production of Materials from Prior Litigation (Docket No. 148) is DENIED; 2) Defendant Bank of Americas Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Responses to Interrogatories (Docket No. 807) is DENIED; 3) Bank Defendants Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Related to PricewaterhouseCooperss Restatement Audit Documents (Docket No. 810) is GRANTED; 4) Plaintiffs Motion to C ompel Production of Documents (Docket No. 814) is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part, with certain requests returned to counsel for further deliberation, a) Production of communications between the Bank Defendants and Government agencies relating to Adelphia is GRANTED, in part. Bank Defendants assert that documents exchanged with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) cannot be produced as it would subject them to criminal liability. They fail, however, to demonstrate that all r elevantdocuments are non-public within the definition of the regulations governing OCC documents. Thus, Bank Defendants must produce all public documents and provide a privilege log for all documents it asserts are non-public; b) Production of docume nts in the possession of Bank Defendants consultants. This issue is returned to the Parties for further discussion. Any outstanding dispute should be submitted to the undersigned on or before February 20, 2009; c) Production of documents concerning c ompensation criteria or compensation received by employees in connection with Adelphia or the Rigas Family is DENIED, without prejudice; d) Production of documents generated prior to January 1, 1996, and after June 25, 2002, is DENIED, without prejud ice, provided that documents, regardless of date generated, may be requested if shown to be specifically relevant; e) Production of documents in the possession, custody, or control of outside counsel. The undersigned returned this issue to the Partie s for further discussion. Anyoutstanding dispute should be submitted to the undersigned on or before February 20, 2009; 5) Bank Defendants Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Preclude the Assertion of Privilege Pursuant to Rule 37 (Docke t No. 806) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part: a) Production of the Covington Log Documents is DENIED. The Court concludes the entries on this log are protected under the work product doctrine because they were created in contemplation of litig ation; b) Documents identified on the Directors' Log: i) Documents related to the Deloitte Action. The ART has conceded the attorney-client privilege as to these documents has been WAIVED; ii) Documents related to the Prestige Litigation. The Co urt concludes that the attorney-client privilege was WAIVED as to documents created during the time of the fraud because there was no express exception for privileged documents. The motion to compel these documents is GRANTED; iii) Communications wit h the U.S. Attorney. The Court finds there was no waiver of the attorney-client privilege because the ART expressly retained the privilege and produced no privileged documents. The motion to compel these documents is DENIED. So Ordered (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 2/11/09) (js) Modified on 2/13/2009 (jab).
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: In Re: Adelphia Communication Corp.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?