In Re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc.

438 B.R. 787, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3717, 2010 WL 4284568
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware
DecidedOctober 27, 2010
Docket19-10169
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 438 B.R. 787 (In Re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 438 B.R. 787, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3717, 2010 WL 4284568 (Del. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

JUDITH K. FITZGERALD, Bankruptcy Judge.

The matter before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Debtors Federal-Mogul Corporation (“FMC”) and Federal-Mogul Products, Inc. (“FMP”) with respect to their objection to PepsiAm-ericas, Inc.’s (“PAS”) amended proof of claim. 2 PAS filed identical claims, numbers 6093 and 6441, against Federal-Mogul Corporation (“FMC”) and Federal-Mogul Products, Inc. (“FMP”) (collectively “Debtors”). PAS asserts as bases for its claims “[t]ort, conversion, and breach of good faith and fair dealing regarding insurance policies.” The Debtors’ objection to the claims is that no factual basis has been stated by PAS that substantiates the validity or amount of any liability of the Debtors. In fact, the claims do not even identify the alleged tort (except conversion), do not explain how the policies were (allegedly) converted, or set forth the basis for any supposed duty of good faith or fair dealing owed by the Debtors to PAS. Rather, the disputed claims consist of a list of causes of action. 3 PAS has not alleged facts that might establish the basis for any tort or the existence of a special relationship between Debtors and PAS. The parties rely on several documents which will *789 be explained below. As to those documents, PAS agrees that FMP was not a party to the 1988 Stock Purchase Agreement (“1988 SPA”), Doc. No. 12328 4 at 7, ¶ 20, but asserts “common law obligations,” 5 notwithstanding the absence of a contractual obligation of FMP to PAS under the 1988 SPA. Doc. No. 12323 at 8, ¶ 22. PAS also agrees that neither it nor any of its predecessors is a party to the 1994 Asset Purchase Agreement (“1994 APA”), id., at 16, ¶ 32, or 1998 Purchase and Sale Agreement (“P & SA”) between Cooper Industries, Inc. and FMC. Id. at 20, ¶ 50.

Summary judgment is appropriate when “ ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ To be material, a disputed fact must be one that might ‘affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.’ ” Smith v. Johnson and Johnson, 593 F.3d 280, 284 (3d Cir.2010). PAS contends that disputed facts exist. However, there is a difference between what the facts are and what they mean and PAS’s challenge is to the meaning of undisputed facts.

For the reasons which follow we will grant Debtors’ motion for summary judgment and sustain their objection to PAS’s claims inasmuch as we find that the entity from which PAS contends that its claims derive does not have the asserted obligation to PAS. The use of identical corporate names and similar corporate names is, to a great degree, the reason why close analysis of the relevant documents is required to determine this dispute.

Relevant Documents

The corporate histories of the entities that eventually became known as PAS and FMC/FMP are complex and the contract documents upon which this decision depends were executed by their predecessors in interest and/or parent(s) or indirect par-entis). Previous Memorandum Opinions of this court explain the corporate histories and relationships of and between the PAS-related chain of entities and the Federal-Mogul-related chain of entities. See excerpts from In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc., 411 B.R. 148, 160-62 (Bankr.D.Del. 2008), at Appendix A, and In re Federal-Mogul, Inc., 2007 WL 4180545 (Bankr. D.Del., November 16, 2007) at *13-15 (citations omitted), at Appendix B. For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, Abex Corporation (not Abex, Inc., see infra), IC Industries, Whitman, Pneumo Corporation, 6 Pneumo Abex Corporation (“PAC 1”) 7 were, at one time or another, in the PAS chain. Similarly, Wagner Electric Corporation and Moog Automotive, Inc., are in the FMC/FMP chain. PA Holdings, the Henley Group, Abex, Inc. and Pneumo Abex Corporation (“PAC 2”) are entirely distinct entities from the PAS and the FMC/FMP chains.

The principal documents upon which the decision in this Memorandum Opinion depends are (1) the 1988 Stock Purchase *790 Agreement (“1988 SPA”) between IC Industries, Inc. (eventually Whitman Corporation then PAS), and PA Holdings Corporation, Exhibit C to Doc. No. 11886, and (2) the 1994 Asset Purchase Agreement (“1994 APA”) between Pneumo Abex Corporation (PAC 2, successor to PA Holdings) and Wagner Electric Corporation (predecessor to FMP).

Other documents include a Mutual Guaranty Agreement between Abex, Inc. and Cooper Industries, Inc., executed in connection with the 1994 APA, a 1994 Insurance Agreement between Pneumo Abex Corporation and Wagner Electric Corporation, three other insurance agreements which were not mentioned in the pleadings but which PAS filed under seal with leave of court, after raising their existence during the argument, 8 and a 1998 Purchase and Sale Agreement (“1998 P & SA”) executed by FMC and Cooper Industries, Inc., the indirect parent of Wagner Electric (Wagner is now FMP).

The 1988 Stock Purchase Agreement (“1988 SPA”)

The 1988 SPA is comprised of the original stock purchase agreement between IC Industries, Inc. and PA Holdings Corporation, and two amendments. The three agreements are collectively referred to as the “1988 SPA.” The First Amendment was dated August 29, 1988, and was between IC Industries, Inc. and PA Holdings Corporation. By the time of the Second Amendment to the SPA, dated September 23, 1991, IC Industries had changed its name to Whitman Corporation and PA Holdings had become Pneu-mo Abex Corporation 9 (referred to herein as “PAC 2”). Thus, the Second Amendment was between Whitman and Pneumo Abex Corporation, “formerly PA Holdings Corporation.” Collectively, the three 1988 agreements (i.e., the original plus two amendments) are referred to in other documents, particularly the 1994 Asset Purchase Agreement, as “the Whitman Agreements.” See note 10 infra. The 1994 APA defines the Whitman Agreements to include “(i) the Whitman Stock Purchase Agreement [the 1988 SPA], and (ii) the Settlement Agreement between Whitman Corporation and Pneumo Abex Corporation dated as of September 23, 1991.” Doc. No. 11886 at Exhibit D, 1994 APA, at 13 (definition of Whitman Agreement) (the 1988 SPA). 10 The 1994 APA further defines the Whitman Stock Purchase Agreement as the 1988 SPA “between IC Industries, Inc. and PA Holdings Corporation, as amended by a First Amendment dated as of August 29, 1988, by a Second Amendment executed bn September 23, 1991[,] and by” a letter dated November 19, 1991, regarding a protocol for asserting insurance claims.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
438 B.R. 787, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 3717, 2010 WL 4284568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-federal-mogul-global-inc-deb-2010.