- 27 -
ards’ motion to vacate).10
On July 2, 2002, petitioners filed in these cases a motion
for leave to file motion for reconsideration and lodged a motion
for reconsideration in these cases. On the same date, the Court
granted the motion for leave and had filed in these cases peti-
tioners’ motion for reconsideration. On July 2, 2002, petition-
ers filed in these cases petitioners’ motion to reopen the record
(petitioners’ motion to reopen the record).11
On July 24, 2002, respondent filed a response to the Trust’s
motion to vacate in each of the cases at docket Nos. 10764-00 and
10767-00 and to Mr. Richards’ motion to vacate in each of the
cases at docket Nos. 10765-00 and 10766-00.12
10The Court is issuing an Order in each of these cases
addressing petitioner’s motion to vacate in each such case.
11The Court is issuing an Order in these cases addressing
petitioners’ motion to reopen the record.
12Respondent did not file a response to petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration or a response to petitioners’ motion to
reopen the record. That was because, in an Order dated July 2,
2002 (July 2, 2002 Order), the Court indicated that the conten-
tions and arguments advanced in each of the Trust’s motions to
vacate and Mr. Richards’ motions to vacate appeared to be essen-
tially the same as the contentions and arguments advanced in
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and petitioners’ motion
to reopen the record. The Court further indicated in the July 2,
2002 Order that it appeared that any response by respondent to
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and respondent’s response
to petitioners’ motion to reopen the record would be essentially
the same as respondent’s response to each of the Trust’s motions
to vacate in the cases at docket Nos. 10764-00 and 10767-00 and
Mr. Richards’ motions to vacate in the cases at docket Nos.
10765-00 and 10766-00. Consequently, in the Court’s July 2, 2002
(continued...)
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011