Goodson

Goodson v. Rowland (In re Pintlar Corp.)

Good Law
127 F.3d 1182·1997 WL 677506
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 3, 1997Nos. 96-36062, 96-36063California1,955 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Schwarzer, J.

We must decide whether the bankruptcy court had personal jurisdiction of the defendants in this adversary proceeding under Bankruptcy Rule 7004(f), as amended subsequent to the commencement of this action.

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs are the trustees of a litigation trust (the Trustees) who brought this adversary proceeding against defendants David J. Rowland, Jeremy E. James, David L. Hudd, Derek J. Moran (the Rowland Directors) and Inoco Pic (Inoco) to recover certain assets belonging to debtors Gulf USA Corporation (Gulf) and its subsidiary, Pintlar Corporation (Pintlar). The amended complaint alleged counts for fraudulent conveyance under Bankruptcy Code sections 544, 548 and 550, and for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duties, civil conspiracy, breach of contract and violation of Delaware corporation law. The bankruptcy court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss count II (corporate waste and mismanagement) for lack of personal jurisdiction but denied the motion with respect to the other counts. On interlocutory appeal, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order as to all counts except count VI (breach of contract), dismissing that count, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.