Midlantic Nat. Bank v. N.J. Dept. of E. P

4 Citing briefs

  1. In the Matter of Mary Veronica Santiago-Monteverde. Mary Veronica Santiago-Monteverde, Appellant,v.John S. Pereira,, Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed October 14, 2014

    (citations and internal quotation marks removed). 80 See Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 505 (1986) (requiring trustee to comply with non-bankruptcy law). 81 11 U.S.C. § 704(a)(1) (providing that the Chapter 7 Trustee shall “collect and reduce to money the property of the estate for which such trustee serves, and close such estate as expeditiously as is compatible with the best interest of parties in interest”); In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

  2. United States of America ex rel. Edward O'Donnell

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 51 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.. Document

    Filed February 28, 2013

    Absent some explicit indication, Congress should not be assumed to have intended to make such a drastic change in the traditional rule of entity liability. See, e.g., Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 501 (1986) (“The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific.”).7 For these reasons, any contention that Mairone can be liable for a violation “affecting a federally-insured financial institution” is meritless as a matter of law, and the FIRREA claim against her should be dismissed.8 7 It is also instructive that, because of the unity of interests between corporation and employees (so long as those employees are acting within the scope of their employment), a corporation cannot be held to have conspired with its officers or employees.

  3. Uniquest,Et al v. USA

    Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 21, 2017

    ..........................6 Fed. Bulk Carriers v. Comm’r, 66 T.C. 283 (1976) .....................................................................................................................9 Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Comm’r, T.C.M. 1977-429........................................................................................................8, 9, 10, 14 G.M. Trading Corporation v. Commissioner, 121 F.3d 977 (5th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................22, 23, 25, 26 Case 1:15-cv-00638-EAW-LGF Document 41-5 Filed 03/21/17 Page 4 of 18 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - cont’d PAGE iv General Motors Corp. v. Comm’r, 112 T.C. 270 (1999) ...........................................................................................................11, 14 McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F. 3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007)......................................................................................................6 Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494 (1986) .................................................................................................................39 Sakol v. Commissioner, 574 F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1978).....................................................................................................36 Sprint Nextel Corporation v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (D. Kan. 2011) ......................................................................................22 Temple v. Hudson View Owners Corp., No. 16-CV-3203, 2016 WL 6993846 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2016) ..............................................5 Texas & Pacific Railway v. United States, 286 U.S. 285 (1932) .................................................................................................................20 United States v. Basye, 410 U.S. 441 (1973) .................................................................................................................28 United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R., 412 U.S. 401 (197

  4. United States Department of Labor v. Velocity Express, Inc

    Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Mediation.

    Filed December 31, 2010

    As the Supreme Court explained, “where a governmental unit is suing a debtor to prevent or stop violation of fraud, environmental protection, consumer protection, safety, or similar police or regulatory laws, or attempting to fix damages for violation of such a law, the action or proceeding is not stayed under the automatic stay.” Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S. 494, 503 (1986) (quoting H. Rep. No. 95-959, at 343, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 6299)) (emphasis supplied). District Courts are the appropriate forum to determine the applicability of the 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) exception.