Adelphia Recovery Trust v. Bank of America, N.A.
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re: The Lovering Tubbs Trust v. Timothy Hoffman (9th Cir. 2024)
- Rambert v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
- In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2019)
- Residential Funding Co. v. HSBC Mortgage Corp. (USA) (In re Residential Capital, LLC) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2015)
- In re Metex Mfg. Corp. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- Paradigm Air Carriers, Inc. v. Texas Rangers Baseball Partners (In re Texas Rangers Baseball Partners) (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas 2013)
- U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Verizon Communications Inc. (District Court, N.D. Texas 2012)
- Trust v. Bank of America, N.A. (Supreme Court of the United States 2011)
- Mc Asset Recovery, LLC v. Commerzbank Ag (District Court, N.D. Texas 2010)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
SUMMARY ORDER
This appeal emerges from the complex bankruptcy proceedings handled with care and thoughtfulness by Judge Robert E. Gerber of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the matter of the bankruptcy of Adelphia Communications Corp. and its subsidiaries. Plaintiff Adelphia Recovery Trust (“ART”) appeals from a December 9, 2008 judgment of the District Court dismissing, in part, plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge McKenna held, in substance, that ART cannot pursue claims on behalf of certain uninjured creditors, which had been fully paid under the terms of two reorganization plans approved by Judge Gerber. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in concluding, inter alia, that plaintiff lacked standing to bring various claims under federal bankruptcy law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.
We have reviewed plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s comprehensive Memorandum and Order of June 17, 2008, we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs claims asserted under bankruptcy law. Accordingly, the Decem-
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.