Eletson Holdings Inc., et al. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., et al.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-07331
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Eletson Holdings v. Levona Holdings, Judge Liman denied Reed Smith’s motion to intervene as untimely and on the merits.
Reed Smith’s attempted intervention on behalf of “Unreorganized Holdings” was rejected. Holdings’ reorganization and Reed Smith’s ability to protect privilege in documents it possesses remained governed by the Bankruptcy Court’s order and the existing arrangements described by the court.
What happened
In Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., Reed Smith asked to intervene for what it called “Unreorganized Holdings” to protect alleged interests in privileged documents. Levona opposed the request, joined by Eletson.
The court found the motion late because an earlier order required intervention motions by October 24, 2025. The court said its later extension applied to individuals seeking to intervene personally, not to the entity Reed Smith represented. The court also said that “Unreorganized Holdings” was only the pre-reorganization Holdings, whose reorganization had been approved by the Bankruptcy Court and whose representation by Reed Smith had been terminated.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion as untimely and on the merits. He said Reed Smith could continue protecting the privilege as custodian of the documents it held on behalf of Holdings, under the court’s existing assumption about control of that entity. The Clerk was directed to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Eletson Holdings Inc., et al. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., et al. · No. 1:23-cv-07331
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 18, 2025
Background
Reed Smith LLP moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, which governs intervention by a nonparty in an existing case, on behalf of what it called “Unreorganized Holdings.” Reed Smith sought to assert and protect purported privileged interests in property. Levona Holdings Ltd. opposed the motion, and Eletson Holdings Inc. joined that opposition.
Why the Court Found the Motion Untimely
The court’s October 17, 2025 order set October 24, 2025 as the deadline for a motion to intervene. Reed Smith did not file a formal intervention motion by that date. Instead, it filed a docket letter stating that it represented “Unreorganized Holdings” and attached declarations from Vasilis Hadjieleftheriadis and Greek lawyer John Markianos-Daniolos.
The court then extended the deadline, but only for Mr. Hadjieleftheriadis or another individual who maintained an interest in the privileged documents and wanted to intervene personally through a formal motion. Reed Smith filed its motion on October 27 on behalf of “Unreorganized Holdings,” not on behalf of an individual. The court therefore held that the motion was untimely and that the period for an individual intervention motion had expired.
Merits of the Intervention Request
The court also held that the motion would fail even if it had been timely. Reed Smith’s reply acknowledged that “Unreorganized Holdings” was the “pre-reorganization Holdings.” The court stated that pre-reorganization Holdings voluntarily asked the Bankruptcy Court to reorganize it, that the Bankruptcy Court carried out the reorganization, and that Holdings after reorganization terminated Reed Smith’s representation. The Bankruptcy Court’s order had not been stayed or reversed.
Based on those circumstances, the court held that Reed Smith could not speak for Holdings. It characterized “Unreorganized Holdings” as a fiction created to avoid the effect of the Bankruptcy Court’s order and to seek relief that Holdings’ officers and directors had not sought from this court.
Protection of Privileged Documents
The court noted that the Second Circuit had not resolved who controls Holdings and had expressed confidence that this court and the Bankruptcy Court would protect the privileged property while that issue was pending. The court had allowed, and would continue to allow, Reed Smith, as custodian of documents in its possession, to assert privilege on behalf of Holdings based on the assumption that Holdings’ prior owners and directors remained in control. The court found no reason to believe that Reed Smith could not adequately protect the interests attributed to “pre-reorganized Holdings.”
Disposition
The court denied Reed Smith’s motion to intervene as untimely and on the merits. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 627.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.