
    RSL COMMUNICATIONS PLC, by Michael John Andrew JERVIS and Steven Anthony Pearson, as the Joint Administrators, Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellant, v. Itzhak FISHER, Defendant-CounterClaimant-Appellee, Nesim Bildirici, Paul Domorski, Ronald S. Lauder, Steven Schiffman, Jacob Schuster, and Eugene Sekulow, Defendants-Appellees.
      
    
    No. 10-1142-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 26, 2011.
    John H. Bae (Adam C. Dembrow, Kaitlin R. Walsh, Paul T. Martin, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY, and Dan K. Webb, Robert L. Michels, Ryanne L. Eas-ley, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, on the brief), Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    John S. Kiernan (Catherine M. Amirfar, Benjamin Sirota, William C. Weeks, on the brief), Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the caption listed above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant RSL Communications Pic (“Pic”) appeals from (1) the judgment entered on March 9, 2010 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J.), which, inter alia, granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and denied Pic’s motion to supplement discovery, pursuant to its opinion dated August 10, 2009; and (2) the district court’s orders dated February 23, 2009 and May 4, 2009, ruling that the “but for” and proximate causation standards were applicable, rather than the “substantial factor” standard. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, “resolv[ing] all ambiguities and drawing] all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Stern v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305, 312 (2d Cir.1997)). The denial of a motion to supplement discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Miller v. Wolpojf & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003).

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment and denial of supplementation for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Sullivan’s well-reasoned and scholarly opinion. See RSL Commc’ns PLC v. Bildirici, 649 F.Supp.2d 184 (S.D.N.Y.2009).

We review the legal standards applied by the district court de novo. See Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 547 (2d Cir.2010). We affirm the district court’s selection of the “but for” and proximate causation standards for substantially the reasons stated in its two orders, dated February 23, 2009 and May 4, 2009. See RSL Commc’ns Plc v. Bildirici, No. 04 Civ. 5217, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37547 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2009); RSL Commc’ns Plc v. Bildirici, No. 04 Civ. 5217, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13864, 2009 WL 454136 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.23, 2009).

We have considered all of Pic’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. Pic’s renewed motion to certify to the New York Court of Appeals the question of New York law regarding fiduciary duties to creditors for a company operating in the “zone of insolvency” is DENIED as moot. 
      
       Recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (effective December 1, 2010) moved the relevant provision to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), without substantive change.
     