Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 246 Decisions Released Dec. 29, 1995 FEDERAL COURT CASES BANKRUPTCY 42-8-7448 Chemetron Corp. v. Phyllis Jaskey Jones, et al., Third Cir. (21 pp.) The district court properly found that a group of former residents and occasional visitors to a neighborhood containing a toxic waste site were not “known” creditors entitled to actual written notice of debtor’s bankruptcy filing and bar claims date, therefore, publication notice satisfied the due process requirements; however, district court failed to adequately consider whether the group’s late claim filing was due to excusable neglect, and improperly concluded that their claims were discharged. [Available online in 3rd Circuit - Appellate Court.] INSURANCE — HEALTH 23-8-7449 Health Maintenance Org. of N.J. Inc., etc. v. Christine Todd Whitman, etc., et al., Third Cir. (21 pp.) The Federal Employee Health Benefits Act preempts the New Jersey Health Insurance Reform Act’s premium assessment provisions when applied to insurance plans governed by the federal law, because such assessments would increase the cost of individual health care benefits to federal employees. [Available online in 3rd Circuit - Appellate Court] REAL ESTATE — PARTNERSHIPS — R.T.C. 34-7-7450 Albert F. Esoldi, et al. v. David Esoldi, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (30 pp.) In a case involving a plethora of claims, including misappropriation of funds and business opportunities, arising out of a failed family real estate partnership, (1) plaintiffs’ have stated a defamation claim, not a trade libel claim, and therefore it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations, (2) since one of the plaintiffs has not identified any evidence that his depression was exacerbated after 1985 by the defendants’ acts, and since he may not rely on the “continuing tort” doctrine, his emotional distress claim is time barred, and (3) the Resolution Trust Corp.’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ self-dealing and RICO claims against it as financier are not barred by the D’Oench Duhme doctrine or 12 U.S.C. 1823(e) since plaintiffs’ claims are not based on secret side agreements that would tend to defraud bank examiners, and are not intertwined with particular assets of the bank or its subsidiary. —END— ??

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.