We have millions of legal documents and clauses that you can search for free.Parties: MOTORS LIQUIDATION CO | Asset Management | FTI Consulting, Inc | Motors Liquidation Company | Wilmington Trust Company Law Firm: Gibson Dunn; Paul Weiss Document Date: 5/25/2016 Industry: Misc. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered October 21, 2003, reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, defendant's cross motion for partial summary judgment denied and the third and fourth causes of action reinstated. In answering certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as to Texas' recognition of pass-through liquidating agreements, the Texas Supreme Court set forth the law relating to pass-through claims in Interstate Contr.
Abraham and Elvira Barisano of counsel), for appellant.
The first and second causes of action alleged that defendant's breach of contract and negligence caused plaintiff to “(i) make substantial additional payments to the Contractor for change orders, as well as incur additional obligations for payment” due to defendant's errors and omissions; “and (ii) incur substantial additional expenses including, but not limited to, real estate taxes, mortgage interest, common charges, general conditions[,] costs and attorneys' fees.” The third and fourth causes of action alleged that as a result of defendant's breach of contract and negligence, “the performance of the work by the Contractor was delayed and impeded and was required to be performed in an inefficient, non-sequential, uneconomic and piecemeal manner causing the Contractor to incur additional and increased costs of construction for labor, supervision, materials, equipment and overhead.” These causes further recited that “Plaintiff has entered into a Liquidating Agreement with the Contractor, providing inter alia that Plaintiff admits and acknowledges liability to the Contractor, that the amount of such liability shall be liquidated to the amount of recovery by Plaintiff in this action, and that Plaintiff may prosecute said Contractor's claims on its behalf.”As the record shows, in or about April 2001, plaintiff entered into a liquidating agreement with Dolner, by which plaintiff admitted and acknowledged, inter alia, liability to Dolner for increased costs due to certain defects, errors or omissions caused by defendant; that a portion of any recovery by plaintiff against defendant would be passed through to Dolner; and that the amount of such liability would be liquidated to the amount recovered by plaintiff in any action against defendant asserting Dolner's claims.
Fuerth and Frank Santoro of counsel), for respondent.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Glenn J.
Financial Services Sector: Financial Governing Law: Delaware Parties: HUNTSMAN CORP | Barclays Bank | HSBC Bank | HUNTSMAN HOLLAND BV | Huntsman International LLC | Huntsman Receivables Finance LLC | HUNTSMAN SURFACE SCIENCES UK LIMITED | Regency Assets Limited | SHEFFIELD RECEIVABLES COMPANY LLC | Sheffield Receivables Corporation | TIOXIDE EUROPE LIMITED | VANTICO GROUP SA Document Date: 3/9/2015 Governing Law: New York Parties: MOTORS LIQUIDATION CO | Asset Management | Environmental Corporate Remediation Company, Inc | FTI Consulting, Inc | Harlem, Inc, MLCS, LLC, MLCS Distribution Corporation, Remediation and Liability Management Company, Inc | MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY | One World Financial | Wilmington Trust Company Law Firm: Cadwalader Wickersham; Gibson Dunn Document Date: 4/4/2011 Industry: Misc.
Financial Services Sector: Financial Governing Law: Delaware Parties: SMARTIRE SYSTEMS INC | Cornell Capital Partners, LP | SMARTIRE TECHNOLOGIES INC | STARAIM ENTERPRISES LIMITED | STAROME INVESTMENTS LIMITED | XENTENIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED | YA GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, LP | Yorkville Advisors LLC Law Firm: Riemer Braunstein Document Date: 3/3/2009 Industry: Scientific and Technical Instr.
Sector: Technology Governing Law: New Jersey Parties: DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP INC | ABN AMRO BANK NV | BANK OF MONTREAL | BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA | BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI, LTD.
The third and fourth causes of action asserted similar claims on behalf of Dolner in the amount of .45 million.
This includes, of course, delays caused by plaintiff and those under its agency and control, such as Meltzer/Mandl, its architect (see Bovis, 285 A. Moreover, in paragraphs 27 and 34, plaintiff admits and acknowledges liability to Dolner, thereby providing a legitimate basis for Dolner's pass-through claims.
Paragraph 21.2 of the owner/general contractor agreement clearly states that plaintiff is responsible to Dolner for delays caused by plaintiff in excess of 40 days, or 70 days in the aggregate. The complaint sets forth additional claims against defendant in paragraphs 26 and 33, in the third and fourth causes of action, which allege damages to Dolner as a result of defendant's negligence and breach of contract.
In addition, plaintiff argued, even absent the liquidating agreement, the owner could assert the fourth cause of action for professional malpractice on the general contractor's behalf given the relationship, sufficiently equivalent to privity, that existed between the architect and the general contractor.