This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in the Chapter 11 reorganization of Allegheny International and related debtors, including Chemetron. The appellees, who lived near former Chemetron industrial sites in Ohio, sought permission to file late claims for personal injuries allegedly caused by radioactive and toxic contamination from operations that ended in 1975. The bankruptcy court had ruled that the appellees were known creditors entitled to actual notice of the claims bar date and allowed the late claims under the totality of the circumstances. The district court reversed, holding that publication notice in national newspapers was constitutionally sufficient because the appellees were unknown creditors at the time of the 1988 filing, that their claims were therefore discharged upon plan confirmation, and that they had not shown excusable neglect warranting late filing.
In Kossman v. TJX Companies, Inc., plaintiff Paul Kossman sued TJX for breach of a 1982 commercial lease after TJX had assigned its interest and later sold related assets to Ames Department Stores under an agreement in which Ames agreed to indemnify TJX for lease-related liabilities. Ames filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1990, prompting TJX to seek referral of the case to bankruptcy court on the ground that it was a “related proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Applying the Third Circuit’s Pacor test—whether the outcome could conceivably affect the debtor’s estate—the court found that a judgment against TJX would trigger Ames’s indemnification obligation and therefore impact the bankruptcy estate. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s objections and ordered the case referred to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including TJX’s motion for an extension of time.
This case was a declaratory judgment action in which insurance companies Foremost and Donegal sought a ruling that their homeowner's policies did not require them to defend or indemnify their insured, Weetman, against a state-court lawsuit by the Platek family alleging that Weetman sexually abused their minor children in 1985. The district court granted the insurers' motions for summary judgment, holding that neither policy provided coverage. Both policies contained exclusions for bodily injury that was expected or intended by the insured. The court reasoned that, under the majority rule followed by courts in other jurisdictions, intent to cause injury is inferred as a matter of law from acts of child sexual molestation, so the exclusions applied and the insurers had no duty to cover any resulting damages.
This case involved claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) by residents and a company against the National Bank of the Commonwealth for response costs and contribution related to hazardous waste contamination at a former metal polishing facility known as the Berlin Property. The bank sought summary judgment, arguing it was protected by CERCLA's security interest exemption during the eight months it held record title after foreclosing on a mortgage. The court denied the motion, holding that the exemption does not shield a party that takes title and that factual disputes existed over whether releases or disposals of hazardous substances occurred during the bank's ownership period. The court also vacated prior dismissal orders on due process grounds and allowed the claims to proceed against the bank as a potentially responsible party under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2).
This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court order finding that the debtor, Quattrone Accountants, Inc., was a 'responsible person' under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 and thus liable for unpaid federal employment taxes owed by its client, the United Dairy Farmers Cooperative Association. The bankruptcy court also ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the tax liability of Phillip Quattrone, an individual not in bankruptcy. The district court reviewed the record and accepted the bankruptcy court's factual findings that the debtor handled UDF's finances, had discretion over payments, knew of the tax delinquencies, and willfully failed to remit the taxes by directing funds to other creditors instead. The court affirmed the order, noting that the debtor's arguments about lacking authority were not supported by the evidence.
The case involves a Title VII lawsuit by the EEOC against Metal Service Company alleging race discrimination in hiring, based on charges filed by two Black applicants who were not hired for positions filled by white applicants. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the charges were untimely because they were filed with the EEOC on the 218th and 219th days after the alleged discrimination, exceeding the general 180-day filing deadline. The court denied the motion, holding that the extended 300-day limitations period applied. It reasoned that Pennsylvania is a deferral state with a work-sharing agreement between the EEOC and the state agency (PHRC), such that the EEOC's transmittal of the charges fulfilled the requirement to initially institute state proceedings, making the filings timely even after accounting for the 60-day deferral period.
