Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,339 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







In re Teligent, Inc.

Case No. 10-2257-bk (C.A. 2, May. 5, 2011)

Appeal and cross-appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.) affirming the order of the bankruptcy court (Bernstein, C.B.J.), which denied K&L Gates LLP’s (“K&L Gates”) motion to lift two protective orders prohibiting disclosure of communications made during a mediation, and Savage & Associates, P.C.’s cross-motion to enjoin K&L Gates from raising questions about the validity of certain provisions of a settlement agreement as a defense to malpractice in a related action.

With respect to the cross-appeal, the protective orders are silent as to when their confidentiality restrictions may be lifted; therefore, disclosure would have been warranted only if the party seeking disclosure had demonstrated (1) a special need for the confidential material it sought; (2) resulting unfairness from a lack of discovery; and (3) that the need for the evidence outweighed the interest in maintaining confidentiality. K&L Gates failed to make the requisite showing, and accordingly, we conclude there was no error in the denial of the law firm’s motion.

With respect to the lead appeal, because K&L Gates was, at most, a potential debtor of a debtor of the estate, it could not have been considered a “party in interest” with standing to contest the validity of the settlement agreement when the motion to approve that agreement was pending before the bankruptcy court. There was, therefore, no error in the holding that K&L Gates is not barred from asserting a defense challenging the validity of any provision of the settlement agreement in connection with the related malpractice action currently pending against the law firm. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court in its entirety.

Appeal and cross-appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.) affirming the order of the bankruptcy court (Bernstein, C.B.J.), which denied K&L Gates LLP’s (“K& L Gates”) motion to lift two protective orders prohibiting disclosure of communications made during a mediation, and Savage & Associates, P.C.’s cross-motion to enjoin K&L Gates from raising questions about the validity of certain provisions of a settlement agreement as a defense to malpractice in a related action.
 

 

Judge(s): Rosemary Pooler
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Related Categories: ADR , Civil Procedure , Communications , Torts
 
Circuit Court Judge(s)
Denny Chin
Rosemary Pooler
Richard Wesley

 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Kevin Castel

 
Plaintiff Lawyer(s) Plaintiff Law Firm(s)
Denise Savage Savage & Associates PC

 
Defendant Lawyer(s) Defendant Law Firm(s)
Andrew Hall Hall Lamb and Hall PA
Mark Levinstein Williams & Connolly LLP
Luba Shur Williams & Connolly LLP
Michael Sundermeyer Williams & Connolly LLP

 
Debtor Lawyer(s) Debtor Law Firm(s)
Teligent Inc

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
that the meaning of the term "must be determined on an `ad hoc' basis," and the categories appointment of a trustee or examiner under section 1104(a) and (b); (2) the right to request andrew c. hall, hall, lamb and hall, p.a., miami, fl, for "creditors and equity security holders are very often better judges of the debtor's economic communications. cf. thestreet.com, 273 f.3d at 229. indeed, the law firm failed to submit any the party seeking disclosure had demonstrated (1) a special need for the confidential material it creditors' committee, an equity security holders' committee, a creditor, an equity security holder, explained, the law firm "was not a creditor of teligent; it was merely a potential debtor of recovery. the bankruptcy court approved the settlement pursuant to a motion under federal (regulatory agency with supervisory responsibilities over the debtor's business or financial against mandl, brought under sections 548 and 550 of chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, 11 purview of that section." in re johns-manville corp., 36 b.r. 743, 747, 748 (bankr. s.d.n.y. including all mediation and settlement communications[.]" k&l gates argued that the conference"). the law firm. accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court in its entirety. savage were invalid. the bankruptcy court denied savage & associates' motion for injunctive 88 made in the context of mediation, parties might be less frank and forthcoming during the that finding was not appealed. early neutral evaluation and mediation/voluntary arbitration, general order m-211, amended pooler, circuit judge. sommer, collier on bankruptcy 1109.01 (16th ed. 2011); accord futuresource llc v. reuters communications, denice savage, the firm's principal, contacted mandl, insisting that he united states court of appeals gates is not barred from asserting a defense challenging the validity of any provision of the in re: teligent, incorporated 66 affairs); in re overview equities, inc., 240 b.r. 683, 686-87 (bankr. e.d.n.y. 1999) (party with 232 (quoting martindale, 594 f.2d at 296). in sec v. thestreet.com, 273 f.3d 222 (2d cir. alternative dispute resolution program, through local rule 9019-1 and a series of general 10-2257 (l) section 1109 provides that "[a] party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a that may ultimately shape the disposition of his or her interest." alan resnick & henry j. associates") was appointed by the bankruptcy court to be the unsecured claims estate ____________________ withhold all documents relating to the settlement agreement. denise savage also demanded that by the reorganization process it should not be considered a party in interest"). refco inc., 505 f.3d at 116 n.9 (2d cir. 2007) (noting that "party in interest" may have different iii and prudential standing to object to the order, and was not a "party in interest" under 11 protective orders prohibiting disclosure of communications made during a mediation, and act of 1998 ("adra 1998"), 28 u.s.c. 651 et seq.2 number of motions, including a motion for relief from the judgment based in part on a claim of in favor of a presumption against modification of the confidentiality provisions of protective in protecting the confidentiality of the material. as we explained in the context of litigation in depositions. see in re teligent, 417 b.r. at 208. accordingly, the law firm failed to show that review de novo the bankruptcy court's view of the principles governing who may contest a greenberg traurig, llp ("greenberg traurig") as new counsel. greenberg traurig then filed a before the bankruptcy court on the agreement's approval. as the bankruptcy court succinctly hudson, ny, for plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee savage & courts. teligent and in the resulting adversary proceeding. k&l gates declined to participate. 26(c) protective order). k&l gates destroy or return any such documents in its possession. both parties complied with defense to malpractice that certain provisions in the settlement agreement between mandl and likewise, the bankruptcy court committed no error in holding that k&l gates failed to substantially outweighs the interest in protecting confidentiality. uma 6(b). potential departure from teligent. at that time, $12 million was outstanding on the loan. k&l and (3) that the need for the evidence outweighs the interest in maintaining confidentiality. of the fact that chapter 11 is structured the way that it is because congress believed that file a plan under section 1121(c); (5) the right to object to confirmation of a plan under section mediation process or might even limit their use of mediation altogether. these concerns counsel [protective] orders (e.g., it was not made `during the mediation process'), or that the court demonstrate a resulting unfairness from a lack of discovery, because the evidence sought by when savage and associates learned that mandl had disclosed confidential mediation against trustee for alleged breach of duty); in re brady, 101 f.3d 1165, 1170-71 (6th cir. 1996) susan mandl, and asm investments llc ("asm"), an entity associated with mandl, and savage & associates opposed the motion to lift the protective orders before the demonstrate a compelling need for the discovery, failed to show that the information was not in this case, the bankruptcy court denied k&l gates's motion to lift the confidentiality defendant-appellee-cross appellee. expansive."); see also in re ionosphere clubs, inc., 101 b.r. 844, 849 (bankr. s.d.n.y. 1989) containers, inc., 608 f.2d 928, 930 (2d cir. 1979); see also calka v. kucker kraus & bruh, 167 we draw this standard from the sources relied upon by the learned bankruptcy court, for the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order of the district court. such as when non-disclosure would result in a manifest injustice, help establish a violation of terminated mandl's employment other than for "cause." i. the cross-appeal the brief), williams & connolly llp, washington, dc, for ____________________ relief, see in re teligent, inc., 417 b.r. 197, 210 (bankr. s.d.n.y. 2009), and the district court (1999) (citation omitted). thus, any construction of the term "party in interest" must be mindful resigned his employment without "good reason," but would be automatically forgiven if teligent seeking disclosure of confidential material to show that its need outweighs the important interest s.d.n.y. 2009). the district court affirmed these conclusions. see in re teligent servs., inc., issue was raised in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided; (3) the associates, p.c. chapter 11, which are to "preserv[e] going concerns and maximiz[e] property available to satisfy pending before the bankruptcy court. there was, therefore, no error in the holding that k&l defendant-appellee-cross-appellee alex mandl. 55 alternative dispute resolution generally, see. e.g., in re cnty. of los angeles, 223 f.3d 990, 993 order to shelter his assets from creditors. 3 validity of certain provisions of a settlement agreement as a defense to malpractice in a related balance of the loan. see in re teligent, inc., 380 b.r. 324, 333-36 (bankr. s.d.n.y. 2008). when teligent, inc. ("teligent") hired alex mandl as its ceo in 1996, the company savage & associates, p.c., (summary order) (movant must show "a compelling need or extraordinary circumstances adra 1998 provides the authority for the bankruptcy court's court annexed 2001), we further refined this principle, explaining that there is a "strong presumption against the ii. the lead appeal 77 outcome of the case should have an opportunity . . . to participate in the adjudication of any issue orders prohibiting disclosure of communications made during a mediation, and savage & martindell v. int'l tel. & tel. corp., 594 f.2d 291, 296 (2d cir. 1979) (same). all three factors represent him in connection with this matter. agency alternative dispute resolution, prohibits disclosure of confidential mediation virginia. specifically, savage & associates sought to enjoin k&l gates from raising as a new york in the context of court-ordered mediation (the "protective orders"). the protective uma, the party seeking disclosure of confidential mediation communications must demonstrate teligent, 417 b.r. at 210. we find no error in these conclusions. and because k&l gates outweighed the interest in maintaining confidentiality. k&l gates failed to make the requisite or any indenture trustee, may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in a case under this vigorously enforce the confidentiality provisions of our own alternative dispute resolution, the free flow of information that may result in the settlement of a dispute," in re grand jury bankruptcy court, the law firm is not estopped from asserting a defense in the malpractice action in setting up a framework for the mediation, the parties agreed to be bound by the terms conclusion. necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits). of the protective orders is the subject of the cross-appeal before us. (as opposed to financial) interest may appear. see, e.g., in re mailman steam carpet cleaning gates drafted a severance agreement for mandl that, according to the law firm, "reflect[ed] that showing, and accordingly, we conclude there was no error in the denial of the law firm's motion. for the second circuit because we agree that k&l gates was not a "party in interest," we do not reach the the law firm. accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court in its entirety. u.s.c. 548, 550, to recover the balance of the loan. mandl again retained k&l gates to $6.005 million and to commence a malpractice suit against k&l gates. the terms of the and the administrative dispute resolution conclusions of law de novo. evans v. ottimo, 469 f.3d 278, 281 (2d cir. 2006). further, we them to be without merit for substantially the reasons stated by the bankruptcy and district u.s.c. 1109(b). 417 b.r. at 210.3 that the evidence is not otherwise available and that the need for the communications that relates to the validity of the settlement agreement. see marvel characters, inc. v. simon, 1515 209. the bankruptcy court's denial of k&l gates's motion to lift the confidentiality provisions law, or prevent harm to the public health or safety. 5 u.s.c. 574(b)-(c). relatedly, under the -v.- any defense in the district of columbia action relating to the mediation of the action filed in satisfy prong two of the test. as the bankruptcy court explained, the law firm failed to appeal and cross-appeal from an order of the united states district court for the governing mediation, general order m-390 amending and einstating m143 and m2-11 (bankr. creditors," bank of am. nat'l trust & sav. ass'n v. 203 n. lasalle st. p'ship, 526 u.s. 434, 453 teligent's debtor (i.e., mandl). as such, it had no financial stake in the outcome of the of 1996 ("adra 1996"), 5 u.s.c. 571 et seq.,1 all parties to the action in virginia participated in a voluntary mediation in attempt to in re: teligent, incorporated, 1010 (s.d.n.y. 1997) ("the term `party in interest' is broadly interpreted, but not infinitely southern district of new york (castel, j.) affirming the order of the bankruptcy court with respect to the lead appeal, because k&l gates was, at most, a potential debtor of a confidentiality restrictions may be lifted; therefore, disclosure would have been warranted only if only limited circumstances. for example, adra 1996, which applies to federal administrative settlement agreement to have been considered a party in interest for the purposes of being heard triggering automatic loan forgiveness." there is no question in this case that k&l gates had too remote an interest in the termination of a trustee's appointment under section 1105; (3) the right to request conversion of circumstances or compelling need" (alteration in original, internal quotation marks omitted)); settlement as a party in interest under section 1109(b), in re refco inc., 505 f.3d 109, 116 (2d debtor of the estate, it could not have been considered a "party in interest" with standing to in an appeal from a district court's review of a decision of a bankruptcy court, we parties in limited circumstances, such as in the case of parties in interest. although "party in savage & associates, p.c.'s cross-motion to enjoin k&l gates from raising questions about the bankruptcy case. further, it had no stake in the outcome of the 9019 motion [because] the pending before the bankruptcy court. there was, therefore, no error in the holding that k&l and gates failed to satisfy prong one of the standard governing disclosure of confidential mediation a party seeking disclosure of confidential mediation communications must demonstrate communications unless the party seeking disclosure demonstrates exceptional circumstances, on may 30, 2008, and as required by the settlement, mandl filed a malpractice action confidentiality provisions in the protective orders. in re teligent, 417 b.r. at 207. however, litigation, under certain limited circumstances, courts have recognized that a party with a legal "provide for the confidentiality of the alternative dispute resolution processes and . . . prohibit mentioned in section 1109 are "not meant to exclude other types of interested parties from the court that a specific communication is not covered by the confidentiality provisions of the docket nos. 10-2257-bk (l), 10-2411-bk (xap) protective order, cf. sec v. thestreet.com, 273 f.3d 222, 228 (2d cir. 2001) (fed. r. civ. p. against k&l gates in the superior court of the district of columbia. during discovery, k&l alleging that mandl had fraudulently transferred certain property through asm to his wife in bankruptcy court to challenge the settlement agreement because k&l gates lacked both article orders entered in the context of mediation. accordingly, we conclude that there was no error in provisions of the protective orders based on the court's conclusion that k&l gates failed to although formal mediation did not result in a settlement, the parties thereafter reached an sought; (2) resulting unfairness from a lack of discovery; and (3) that the need for the evidence ltd., 312 f.3d 281, 284 (7th cir. 2002); in re alpex computer corp., 71 f.3d 353, 357 (10th cir. in the future." id. at 229-30. it follows that similar concerns arise in the context of mediation. resigned before teligent terminated his employment, and therefore, mandl was liable for the the provisions of the settlement agreement when the agreement's approval was pending before defense in the malpractice action in d.c. superior court, any arguments relating to the validity alternative dispute resolution programs. see 28 u.s.c. 651(b). although adra 1996 left the plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee, sought discovery of the entire universe of documents. id. at 207. the bankruptcy court also in this case. appellee-cross-appellant k&l gates llp. throughout the bankruptcy code are instructive. these include: (1) the right to request the pension & health plans, 16 f. supp. 2d 1164, 1170-80 (c.d. cal. 1998), aff'd 216 f.3d 1082 absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of [the] order or some extraordinary legal interest in property, rather than claim, found to be a party in interest). confidentiality is an important feature of the mediation and other alternative dispute luba shur (michael s. sundermeyer, mark s. levinstein, on (9th cir. 2000); bernard v. galen grp., inc., 901 f. supp. 778, 784 (s.d.n.y. 1995). we 44 noted that its conclusion was "not intended to foreclose k&l's right to argue before the dc k&l gates was available through other means, including through responses to interrogatories or lacked standing to challenge the settlement agreement when it was pending before the before: pooler, wesley, and chin, circuit judges. chapter." see 11 u.s.c. 1109. beyond this non-exhaustive list, the term "party in interest" is party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (4) the resolution of the issue was however, the protective orders provided no guidance on when, or if, a party might be entitled to k&l gates had not shown a need for all mediation communications, though the law firm had 2 otherwise available, and failed to establish that the need for the evidence was outweighed by the extended mandl a $15 million loan. the loan was to be due and payable immediately if mandl conferences from advising "unauthorized third parties of discussions or action taken at the meanings in different portions of the bankruptcy code), other rights afforded "parties in interest" although parties in interest typically have a financial stake in the outcome of the disclosure of confidential dispute resolution communications," id. 652(d). gates sought documents relating to "the negotiations leading up to the settlement agreement, 1111 (section 1109(b) is not exclusive in its listing of parties in interest, but "if a party is not affected bankruptcy court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous and reviewing its (9th cir. 2000); clark v. stapleton corp., 957 f.2d 745, 746 (10th cir. 1992) (per curiam); communications, the law firm did not satisfy prong three of the test, which requires a party action. 1 finally, because k&l gates failed to demonstrate a special need for the mediation communications. outweighed the interest in maintaining confidentiality. k&l gates failed to make the requisite the bankruptcy court. insofar as this argument is premised on savage & associates's mistaken agreement also required mandl to remit to the estate 50% of the net value of any malpractice conclusion we disagree. as the bankruptcy court concluded, k&l gates could not have appeared before the id. at 229 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted). thestreet.com, if "protective orders have no presumptive entitlement to remain in force, parties background (trustee acts as a party in interest in seeking extension of time to object to dischargeability of a k&l gates's request, mandl produced certain documents. "essential" to camp's vitality and effectiveness. lake utopia paper ltd. v. connelly bankruptcy under chapter 11. cross-appellee savage & associates, p.c. ("savage & 1984), aff'd, 52 b.r. 940 (s.d.n.y. 1985); accord in re martin paint stores, 207 b.r. 57, 61 gates is not barred from asserting a defense challenging the validity of any provision of the constitutional or prudential questions. improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." sought; (2) resulting unfairness from a lack of discovery; and (3) that the need for the evidence the standards for disclosure under the uma and the adras are also consistent with the confidentiality restrictions may be lifted; therefore, disclosure would have been warranted only if modification of a protective order," and orders should not be modified "absent a showing of s.d.n.y. dec. 1, 2009); see also in re expansion of general order m-143 to include the use of cir. 2002); cf. thestreet.com, 273 f.3d at 229 ("where there has been reasonable reliance by a 310 f.3d 280, 288-89 (2d cir. 2002) (collateral estoppel applies only where (1) the identical (bernstein, c.b.j.), which denied k&l gates llp's ("k&l gates") motion to lift two protective orders imposed limitations, inter alia, on the disclosure of information relating to the mediation. procedure 26(c). as we explained in fdic v. ernst & ernst, 677 f.2d 230 (2d cir. 1982) (per ____________________ (bernstein, c.b.j.), which denied k&l gates llp's ("k& l gates") motion to lift two civil appeals management plan ("camp"), because we believe that confidentiality is not further defined in the statute. in re comcoach corp., 698 f.2d 571, 573 (2d cir. 1983). these requests. discussion rest. assocs., inc., 39 f. supp. 2d 412, 417 (s.d.n.y. 1999); folb v. motion pictures indus. 1212 k&l gates failed to demonstrate a special or compelling need for all mediation which include the uniform mediation act ("uma"), the administrative dispute resolution act discovery was "critical to issues such as causation, mitigation, and damages." in response to debtor, in re teligent, inc., 417 b.r. 197 (bankr. s.d.n.y. 2009), reasoning, among other things, that gates committed malpractice in the course of representing him during his termination from settlement did not require k&l to pay any money to the teligent estate or to mandl." in re debt on behalf of creditors); in re co petro mktg. grp., inc., 680 f.2d 566, 572 (9th cir. 1982) mandl retained the law firm k&l gates llp around april 2001 in connection with his 99 denise savage, savage & associates, p.c., croton on certain provisions of a settlement agreement as a defense to malpractice in a related action. conclusion that k&l gates had standing to challenge the approval of the settlement agreement, settlement agreement in connection with the related malpractice action currently pending against debtor of the estate, it could not have been considered a "party in interest" with standing to interest" must be interpreted in terms of the specific provision in which it appears, see in re affirmed, see in re teligent servs., inc., no. 09 civ. 9674, 2010 wl 2034509 (s.d.n.y. may 13, orders. see 28 u.s.c. 651(b); bankr. s.d.n.y. r. 9019-1; in re adoption of procedures of the protective orders routinely employed by the bankruptcy court in the southern district of confidentiality provisions of the protective orders. the bankruptcy court denied the motion, see k&l gates llp, contest the validity of the settlement agreement when the motion to approve that agreement was such as] the sec," id. at 458 n.28, and that is why chapter 11 allows the intervention of third the denial of k&l gates's motion to lift the confidentiality provisions of the protective orders adra 1996 directs district courts to maintain and make available to litigants contest the validity of the settlement agreement when the motion to approve that agreement was traurig invited k&l gates to participate in the mediation, to address mandl's claim that k&l necessary to understand the decision. f.3d 144, 146 (2d cir. 1999) (per curiam); 2d cir. app. d, r.. 4 (prohibiting parties in camp communication. there was, therefore, no error in the bankruptcy court's conclusion that k&l of maintaining the confidentiality of mediation communications and provides for disclosure in would resort less often to the judicial system for fear that such orders would be readily set aside the bankruptcy court held a one-day trial after which it concluded that mandl had appeal and cross-appeal from an order of the united states district court for the viability and their own economic self-interest than courts, trustees, or [governmental agencies ____________________ showing, and accordingly, we conclude there was no error in the denial of the law firm's motion. (argued: january 11, 2011 decided: may 5, 2011) lawsuit in the eastern district of virginia against mandl, naming as defendants mandl's wife, with respect to the cross-appeal, the protective orders are silent as to when their appellee-cross-appellant, august term, 2010 "the general theory behind the section is that anyone holding a direct financial stake in the newly discovered evidence. around the same time, savage and associates commenced a new subpoena dated dec. 17, 1996, 148 f.3d 487, 492 (5th cir. 1998), and protecting the integrity of agreement. in exchange for dismissal of the action in virginia, mandl agreed to pay the estate 1313 _____________________ accord iridium india telecom ltd. v. motorola, inc., 165 f. app'x 878, 880 (2d cir. 2005) 3 less than a month after the parties ratified the severance agreement, teligent filed for the party seeking disclosure had demonstrated (1) a special need for the confidential material it public interest in maintaining confidentiality. see generally in re teligent, 417 b.r. 197 (bankr. associates, p.c.'s cross-motion to enjoin k&l gates from raising questions about the validity of sheldone v. pa. tpk. comm'n, 104 f. supp. 2d 511, 517 (w.d. pa. 2000); fields-d'arpino v. k&l gates then filed a motion with the bankruptcy court, seeking to lift the bankruptcy court and cross-moved for injunctive relief prohibiting k&l gates from asserting cir. 2007), and we review for abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court's decision not to amend a 2010). these orders are the subject of the lead appeal before us. `extraordinary circumstance' or `compelling need' warrants the requested modification." id. at a chapter 11 case to a case under an alternate chapter pursuant to section 1112(b); (4) the right to we have considered appellant and cross-appellant's remaining contentions and find party or deponent, a district court should not modify a protective order granted under rule 26(c) shortly after the bankruptcy court issued its decision relating to the loan, mandl retained corp., 196 f.3d 1, 5 (1st cir. 1999) (individual creditor may maintain adversary proceeding settlement agreement in connection with the related malpractice action currently pending against are necessary to warrant disclosure of otherwise non-discoverable documents. 1995); in re hutchinson, 5 f.3d 750, 756 (4th cir. 1993). however, courts have long recognized whether or not someone is a party in interest must be read against the purposes of resolve both the motions before the bankruptcy court as well as the virginia action. greenberg since the issues are narrow, we recite only as much of the factual background as is curiam), once a protective order has been entered and relied upon, "it can only be modified if an should nevertheless order disclosure of a specific communication under applicable law." id. at (1) a special need for the confidential material, (2) resulting unfairness from a lack of discovery, release confidential information connected to the mediation. no. 09 civ. 9647, 2010 wl 2034509 (s.d.n.y. may 13, 2010). there was no error in this standard governing modification of protective orders entered under federal rule of civil of the provisions of the settlement agreement because k&l gates did not raise its challenge to were courts to cavalierly set aside confidentiality restrictions on disclosure of communications particulars of those programs to the local rules of each court, see id., it did require courts to general order m-143 (bankr. s.d.n.y. oct. 20, 1999). with respect to the lead appeal, because k&l gates was, at most, a potential debtor of a resolution processes. promising participants confidentiality in these proceedings "promotes the affirmed. necessary to modify [a] protective order"); see also in re anonymous, 283 f.3d 627, 636-37 (4th southern district of new york (castel, j.) affirming the order of the bankruptcy court 1414 evidence to support its argument that there was a special need for disclosure of any specific 1128(b); and (6) the right to request a revocation of an order of confirmation under section 1144. appellant argues principally that k&l gates should be enjoined from raising, as a with respect to the cross-appeal, the protective orders are silent as to when their teligent had terminated mandl other than for cause effective as of april 27, 2001, thus "extraordinary circumstances" warrant disclosure. cf. thestreet.com, 273 f.3d at 229. conduct an independent and plenary review of the bankruptcy court's decision, accepting the each of these recognizes the importance alex mandl, representative. in discharging its duties pursuant to this role, savage & associates filed rule of bankruptcy procedure 9019. the approval of the settlement is not before us on appeal. here, as the bankruptcy court observed, k&l gates has sought a blanket lift of the approximately 1,000 adversary proceedings. these adversary proceedings included an action


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise