In re Exide Technologies

2 Citing briefs

  1. Paramount Pictures Corporation v. Puzo

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 22 MOTION to Dismiss Amended and Restated Counterclaim.. Document

    Filed July 17, 2012

    Moreover, the requirements for an allegation of breach sufficient to justify a rescission set a very high bar, as rescission requires a breach sufficiently “substantial” to show an unequivocal intent to undo the entire contract, not simply the remaining executory promises. E.g. Exide, 607 F.3d at 963; Faden Bayes Corp. v. Ford Motor Co., 97 CIV. 1867 (MBM), 1997 WL 426100 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 1997) (dismissing claim for rescission where alleged breach plainly not substantial given overall contract). Given the specific allegations in the Counterclaim that Paramount substantially performed under the 1969 Agreement and then acted in reliance upon it for more than 40 years (Counterclaim ¶ 1-7) there is plainly no allegation sufficient to support a rescission claim, as the cases cited in Paramount’s opening brief demonstrate.

  2. Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

    REPLY BRIEF

    Filed January 13, 2012

    This Court will not disturb the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact unless it is determined that those findings were “clearly erroneous”. In re Nortel Networks, Inc., 2011 WL 6826412, *7 (3d Cir. Dec. 29, 2011) (citing In re Exide Techs., 607 F.3d 957, 961-62 (3d Cir. 2010)). Conclusions of law are subject to plenary review.