A Philadelphia common pleas judge, taking a narrow view of what constitutes “payment intangible” under the Uniform Commercial Code, said the “mere hope” of recovery in litigation could not be counted as an asset for legal purposes without a lawyer’s certification of the case.
In an apparent case of first impression under the Uniform Commercial Code in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary S. Glazer ruled that the potential proceeds of a lawsuit could not be considered a payment intangible in satisfying the debt owed by a company to a lender.
