IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

--------------------------------------------------------------------

LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 

ASSOCIATION, a California public pension fund,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN J. RIGAS, TIMOTHY J. RIGAS, JAMES P. 

RIGAS, MICHAEL J. RIGAS, PETER L. VENETIS, 

DENNIS P. COYLE, LESLIE J. GELBER, PETE J. 

METROS, ERLAND E. KAILBOURNE, JAMES R. 

BROWN, DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP, BANC OF 

AMERICA SECURITIES, LLC, and SALOMON SMITH 

BARNEY HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4086

O R D E R

AND NOW, this __________ day of September, 2002, upon consideration of the 

Expedited Motion of defendants Banc of America Securities, LLC and Salomon Smith Barney 

Holdings, Inc. (the “Underwriter Defendants”) for an Extension of Time to Respond to the 

Complaint, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and that the time for the 

Underwriter Defendants to answer, move or otherwise plead with respect to the complaint in Los 

Angeles County Employees Retirement Association vs. John J. Rigas, E.D. Pa. No. 02-4086 

(“LACERA”) is extended as follows:

(a) If the Court grants the motion of Deloitte & Touche to Implement the Court’s 

April 30, 2002 Consolidation Order, the Underwriter Defendants’ obligation to answer, move, or 

otherwise plead with respect to the LACERA complaint shall be governed by the consolidation 

order and the Court’s subsequent scheduling orders;

Case 2:02-cv-04086-HH Document 22 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 9
2

(b) If the Court denies the motion of Deloitte & Touche to Implement the Court’s 

April 30, 2002 Consolidation Order, the Underwriter Defendants shall answer, move, or 

otherwise plead with respect to the LACERA complaint within thirty days of the denial of the 

motion.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________________

Herbert J. Hutton, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04086-HH Document 22 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 2 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

--------------------------------------------------------------------

LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 

ASSOCIATION, a California public pension fund,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN J. RIGAS, TIMOTHY J. RIGAS, JAMES P. 

RIGAS, MICHAEL J. RIGAS, PETER L. VENETIS, 

DENNIS P. COYLE, LESLIE J. GELBER, PETE J. 

METROS, ERLAND E. KAILBOURNE, JAMES R. 

BROWN, DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP, BANC OF 

AMERICA SECURITIES, LLC, and SALOMON SMITH 

BARNEY HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4086

EXPEDITED MOTION OF DEFENDANTS BANC 

OF AMERICA SECURITIES, LLC AND SALOMON SMITH BARNEY HOLDINGS, 

INC. FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

Defendants Banc of America Securities, LLC and Salomon Smith Barney 

Holdings, Inc. (the “Underwriter Defendants”) make this expedited motion for an extension of 

time to answer, move, or otherwise plead with respect to the complaint in Los Angeles County 

Employees Retirement Association vs. John J. Rigas, E.D. Pa. No. 02-4086 (“LACERA”), and in 

support thereof state as follows:

The Consolidation Order

1. On April 30, 2002, this Court entered a consolidation order, a copy of 

which is attached as Exhibit "A". Paragraph five of that Order provides as follows: 

Later Filed Cases. The terms of the Order apply to actions later 

instituted in, removed to, or transferred to this Court that involved 

claims on behalf of the purchasers of Adelphia securities which are 

related to the claims of plaintiffs in these consolidated cases. . . .

Case 2:02-cv-04086-HH Document 22 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 3 of 9
2

2. On June 26, 2002, the firm of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. filed a complaint 

captioned Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association vs. John J. Rigas, E.D. Pa. 

No. 02-4086. The LACERA complaint alleged, inter alia, claims on behalf of purchasers of 

Adelphia debt securities, and noted that related claims (including claims enumerated in this 

Court’s April 30, 2002 consolidation order) were pending.

3. On August 2, 2002, Deloitte and Touche filed a Motion to Implement the 

Court’s April 30, 2002 Consolidation Order. A copy of this motion is attached as Exhibit "B".

4. On August 14, 2002 the Rigas Defendants filed a motion joining in the 

Motion of Deloitte & Touche to Implement the Court’s April 30, 2002 Consolidation Order. A 

copy of this motion is attached as Exhibit "C".

Extension of Time for Deloitte & Touche and

Individual Defendants to Respond to the Complaint

5. Although all other plaintiffs agreed to extend the time for Deloitte & 

Touche to answer, move or otherwise plead with respect to the complaints they had filed until 

the Motion to Implement the Court’s April 30, 2002 Consolidation order was decided, plaintiffs 

in the LACERA action, and in Franklin Strategic Income Fund v. John J. Rigas, E.D. Pa. No. 02-

4292 (“Franklin”) – both represented by Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. – refused to do so.

6. Deloitte & Touche therefore filed an Expedited Motion for an Extension 

of Time to Respond to Certain Complaints on August 22, 2002. Directors Dennis Coyle, Erland 

Kailbourne, Leslie Gelber and Peter Metros joined in Deloitte’s motion. A copy of this Motion 

is attached as Exhibit "D".

7. On August 27, 2002, the Court granted the Expedited Motion for an 

Extension of Time to Respond to Certain Complaints filed by Deloitte, Coyle, Kailbourne, 

Case 2:02-cv-04086-HH Document 22 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 4 of 9
3

Gelber and Metros, and relieved them of any obligation to respond to the LACERA and Franklin

complaints until after the disposition of Deloitte’s Motion to Implement the Court’s April 30, 

2002 consolidation order. A copy of the Court’s August 27, 2002 Order is attached as Exhibit 

"E".

Underwriter Defendants’ Request for an Extension of Time

8. On August 27, 2002, immediately following the Court’s August 27, 2002 

Order, counsel for the Underwriter Defendants contacted counsel for LACERA to confirm that 

they would agree to extend to the Underwriter Defendants an extension similar to the one the 

Court had granted to Deloitte, Coyle, Kailbourne, Gelber and Metros.

9. Three weeks later, on September 17, 2002, despite the fact that the Court 

granted the motion filed by Deloitte, Coyle, Kailbourne, Gelber and Metros, the LACERA

plaintiff advised the Underwriter Defendants that it refused to agree that the Court’s August 27, 

2002 Order would extend to the Underwriter Defendants.

10. LACERA also refused to provide defendant Peter L. Venetis with such an 

extension, and on September 11, 2002, he filed an Expedited Motion for an Extension of Time to 

Respond to Certain Complaints. A copy of this Motion is attached as Exhibit "F".

The Extension Would Place all Defendants on a Common Response Deadline

11. There is no reason to require the Underwriter Defendants to respond to the 

LACERA complaint when (a) Deloitte, Coyle, Kailbourne, Gelber, Metros and Venetis do not 

have to do so, and (b) the Motion of Deloitte to Implement the Court’s April 30, 2002 

Consolidation Order would place all consolidated cases on a schedule where all defendants

would have a consistent deadline to respond to the complaint.

Case 2:02-cv-04086-HH Document 22 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 5 of 9
4

12. Moreover, granting the Underwriter Defendants’ motion for an extension 

would have the desirable result of giving all defendants a consistent deadline for responding to 

the complaint, regardless of whether the court grants the motion of Deloitte.

13. The refusal of the LACERA plaintiff to agree to extend the time for the 

Underwriter Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise plead with respect to its complaint is 

manifestly unreasonable, and subverts the orderly disposition of these consolidated cases. 

14. The Court should therefore order that the time for the Underwriter 

Defendants to answer, move or otherwise plead with respect to the LACERA complaint be 

extended until required by the Court’s scheduling orders (if the Motion of Deloitte & Touche to 

Implement the Court’s April 30, 2002 Consolidation Order is granted), or until thirty days after 

the Court’s decision on the Motion of Deloitte & Touche to Implement the Court’s April 30, 

2002 Consolidation Order (if that motion is denied).

Case 2:02-cv-04086-HH Document 22 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 6 of 9
5

15. Because the LACERA plaintiff has refused to agree to extend the time 

beyond October 21, 2002 for the Underwriter Defendants to answer, move or otherwise plead 

with respect to their Complaint, the Underwriter Defendants respectfully request expedited 

treatment of this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________________

David C. Franceski, Jr.

(I.D. No. 32664)

Thomas W. Dymek

(I.D. No. 86248)

STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP

2600 One Commerce Square

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7098

(215) 564-8000

Attorneys for Defendants

Salomon Smith Barney Holdings, Inc. and 

Banc of America Securities, LLC

Of Counsel:

Mitchell A. Lowenthal

David E. Brodsky

Jennifer L. Kroman

Stuart N. Mast

CLEARY, GOTTLIEB, STEEN & HAMILTON

One Liberty Plaza

New York, NY 10006

Dated: September 20, 2002

Doc. #616061

Case 2:02-cv-04086-HH Document 22 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 7 of 9
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Thomas W. Dymek, hereby certify that on this 20th day of September, 2002, I 

caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be served upon the following:

VIA FIRST CLASS, U.S. MAIL

Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esquire

Stuart M. Grant, Esquire

Megan D. McIntyre, Esquire

GRANT & EISENHOFER PA

1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100

Wilmington, DE 19801-2599

Penny Conly Ellison, Esquire

Thomas S. Biemer, Esquire

DILWORTH PAXSON LLP

3200 Mellon Bank Center

1735 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7595

Patrick J. O'Connor

COZEN O'CONNOR

1900 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Joel E. Tasca, Esquire

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP

1735 Market Street, 51st. Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Robert L. Hickok, Esquire

Jeremy Heep, Esquire

PEPPER HAMILTON LLP

3000 Two Logan Square

18th and Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799

Case 2:02-cv-04086-HH Document 22 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 8 of 9
7

Philip C. Korologos, Esquire

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

333 Main Street

Armonk, New York 10504

Daniel C. Fleming, Esquire 

Henry Oh, Esquire

WONG FLEMING PC

1528 Walnut Street, Suite 1602

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Matthew H. Meade, Esquire

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10104-0050

Thomas W. Dymek

Doc. #610781

Case 2:02-cv-04086-HH Document 22 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 9 of 9