Telecom Business Solution, LLC, et al. v. Terra Towers Corp., et al.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-01761
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Telecom Business Solution v. Terra Towers, Judge Kaplan granted requests to seal related filings and shorten briefing deadlines.
The petitioners—Telecom Business Solution, LLC, LATAM Towers, LLC, and AMLQ Holdings (Cay), Ltd.—and the respondents affected by the sealed filings and expedited briefing schedule.
What happened
Telecom Business Solution, LLC, LATAM Towers, LLC, and AMLQ Holdings (Cay), Ltd. asked the court to keep two forthcoming motions and any responses confidential. The motions concern the Shareholders Agreement and an ongoing sale process.
The petitioners said the filings would contain sensitive business information covered by confidentiality provisions. They also asked the court to shorten the response and reply deadlines by three days, making the opposition deadline December 15 and the reply deadline December 19.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the requests. The opinion does not provide a separate explanation beyond the word “GRANTED.”
The detailed version
- Telecom Business Solution, LLC, et al. v. Terra Towers Corp., et al. · No. 1:22-cv-01761
- Lewis Kaplan
- Dec. 5, 2025
Background
The opinion is a letter submitted by Telecom Business Solution, LLC and LATAM Towers, LLC, collectively called “Peppertree,” and AMLQ Holdings (Cay), Ltd. The petitioners are represented by counsel in the action concerning the Shareholders Agreement. The agreement includes confidentiality provisions and provisions concerning the sale of Continental Towers Latam Holdings, Ltd. The letter states that the court had previously ordered filings in the action sealed and had issued orders enforcing provisions concerning the sale.
Requests
The petitioners requested permission to file under seal two forthcoming motions related to the Shareholders Agreement. They also asked that responses to those motions be filed under seal. They argued that the motions and supporting documents would contain competitively sensitive and confidential information about the company and the sale process.
The petitioners separately requested expedited briefing. Specifically, they asked to shorten by three days the periods for opposition and reply briefs under the court’s local rules, with opposition briefs due December 15 and reply briefs due December 19.
Ruling
The document states “GRANTED,” indicating that the court granted the requests to file the motions and responses under seal and to use the requested expedited briefing schedule. The text does not provide a separate explanation or additional terms for the ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.