Third-Party Defendant, Delta-T Corporation, (“Delta-T”), by its attorneys, ADLER MURPHY & McQUILLEN LLP, moves this Honorable Court for an order allowing Third-Party Plaintiff, Agra Industries, Inc. (“Agra”) to produce the Settlement Agreement between Agra and Plaintiff, United Ethanol, LLC (“United Ethanol”), and for an extension of time for Delta-T to respond to Agra’s Motion to Participate on Its Own Right To Recover Damages against Delta-T.
United Ethanol filed this lawsuit against Agra on March 20, 2009. In its Amended Complaint that it filed on October 14, 2009, United Ethanol alleged that Agra was negligent in designing and constructing United Ethanol’s process plant, breached the contract between the two parties and breached its warranty that it extended to United Ethanol. Thereafter, Agra filed its Third Party Complaint for contribution against Delta-T on December 1, 2009.
Approximately six months later, Delta-T filed bankruptcy on May 25, 2010. Pursuant to Agra’s motion, the bankruptcy court modified the stay on November 16, 2010 thereby allowing Agra to resume
…show more content…
As a result, Delta-T requested a copy of the United Ethanol/Agra Settlement Agreement from Agra’s attorneys. In response, Agra’s attorneys, William McCardell, the attorney that filed Agra’s motion, and Kristopher Kuehn, advised Delta-T’s attorneys that Agra did not object to its producing the United Ethanol/Agra Settlement Agreement as long as Delta-T preserved the confidentiality of the agreement. Further, Agra represented that it could produce the agreement only pursuant to an order from the Court due to its confidential nature. Further, Agra represented that it did not have an objection to Delta-T’s request for an extension of time to respond to its motion and to reset the briefing schedule and hearing
Norris- the plaintiff had worked decedent's farm, worked the soil, and harvested and marketed the produce. Plaintiff, working primarily without the decedent's aid, and drove the produce to various markets. She handled all finances and deposited them in the couple's joint banking account. Finally, the evidence showed that the decedent, an alcoholic, depended almost entirely on plaintiff's work in the produce business and as well her care of him while he was ill.
Facts: Frigaliment Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. had breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered. In the first of the two contracts Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. ( smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract vice the first agreement) Both contracts were signed by the parties on May 2nd, 1957. BNS shortly after made 2 shipments to meet the requirements of the first contract , of these two shipments the first was not delivered in full, but the shortage was made up with the later shipment. After receiving the shipment, Frigaliment came to the conclusion that the larger chickens delivered were not young chickens suitable for the purpose of frying or broiling. The older chickens commonly known as fowl were only suitable for stewing purposes. Frigaliment then requested to B.N.S. to stop the second contract shipment of chickens and sued BNS, claiming that under the contract B.N.S. was to only ship young chickens. BNS in turn responded that the obligation was simply to ship chickens that met the description in the contract; this was not exclusive to young chickens per the contract.
Frank, Allan D. (1997) “After the UPS Settlement: Who gained, who lost, and what will
Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract.
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
These most recent depositions stem from a case involving Penn State insurance provider Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Co., which is seeking to deny reimbursement for settlement money that the school has already paid to the alleged victims. In all, an expert working on behalf of the insurance company has identified six incidents (including the
Delta does business globally in 503 cities in 94 countries and is the third largest airline in the United States. In 2003, Delta's daily needs included 7.3 million gallons of fuel, 109,000 meals and snacks, 151,000 bottles of water, 87,000 cans of soda, and 219,000 pounds of ice. Its daily operations also required large amounts of information relating to such areas as flight schedules, gate information, baggage handling, customer service, and tower operation. To be competitive in the airline industry, Delta required an efficient flow of operations. However, accurate advanced planning is nearly impossible because of such elements as changing economic realities and weather conditions, and unexpected maintenance issues.
Voegele, Erin. “Flint Hills Resources to acquire Georgia ethanol plant.” Ethanol Producer Magazine. September 8, 2014
Arnold & Porter chose to sue Pittston rather than the Buffalo Mining Company because the value of the corporation allowed for adequate compensation to the victims. Author and head lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gerald M. Stern, writes that the original goal was sue to sue for $21 million for the disaster to have a material effect on the cooperation (51). To avoid responsibility Pittston attempted to prove that the Buffalo Mining Company was an independent corporation with its own board of directors. The lawyers for the plaintiffs disproved this claim by arguing the Buffalo Mining Company never held formal meetings of the board of directors and was not independent of the parent company. During this case Pittston’s Oil division had applied to build an oil refinery in Maine. The ...
Timeline of this case should be clearly organized in order to better understanding this case. In 2009, Poor Son transferred Rich Grandson to Parent. In 2010, Poor Son filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the US bankruptcy code, and Parent deconsolidated Poor Son from statements. In 2011, Poor Son filed an action against Parent seeking to void the transfer of Rich Grandson. In May 2012, the bankruptcy court held a selection meeting in which it considered competing plans of reorganization submitted by four bidders. In June 2012, OtherCo, an unrelated party, became the wining plan sponsor. In July 2012, OtherCo rescind its offer because the bad evonomic condition. In December 2014, the bankruptcy court recommended
supplied on the audit documents. The decision I chose may cost Baker Greenleaf to lose an
Before the jury decides a verdict, the last step in the trial process is the closing arguments. There were no closing arguments because the parties had to settle on nine million dollars. They did this because the plaintiff’s attorneys went bankrupt due to this case and they couldn’t afford to invest any more money into the case. Beatrice Foods ended up being not liable for the deaths of children so they were allowed to leave the case. Due to this, only W.R. Grace had to settle with the plaintiff. Later on in 1988, Jan Schlichtmann brought this case to the EPA’s attention and the EPA decided to bring lawsuits against the companies. W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods ended up having to pay for their huge mistake. They had to pay for the largest chemical cleanup in the Northeastern which cost sixty- four million dollars.
ADR holds an extensive, easily influenced and diverging choice of processes for finding solutions to disputes which are personified by structured negotiation and consensus. It is regarded that arbitration is a familiar ADR technique, however, it is more of an official adjudicative and adversary technique initially a confidential litigation process which has more commonality to litigation than the more original consensual processes which symbolise ADR. As simplified by Angyal (Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1987, p. 11). "The key difference between ADR and those traditional techniques of litigation and arbitration is that ADR techniques are used to produce a resolution to dispute through a negotiated agreement while litigation and arbitration are processes by which a result is imposed on the parties. " We can say that many issues arise with terms.
The Plaintiff of the case, Mr. Khawaja Tahir Jamal is the owner of the Khwaja Flat Glass Industries (Private) Limited. He said that he and his company held the patent of a novel process for producing and manufacturing sheet glass with the help of the float glass technology. The Plaintiff had filed a suit against AR Rehman Glass which was a rival company, on the basis, that they had an intention to infringe or had already infringed their patent by setting up a float glass unit. So, the Plaintiff had demanded an injunction that would restrain the Defendant from infringing their patent by either producing, selling or using the Plaintiff’s innovation as their own.