- 12 - assets.’” Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 762 F.2d 303, 308 (3d Cir. 1985) (quoting McClinton v. Rockford Punch Press & Manufacturing Co., 549 F. Supp. 835, 837 (E.D. Pa. 1982)). However, where “the transaction is fraudulently entered into to escape liability, a successor corporation may be held responsible for the debts and liabilities of its predecessor.” Id. at 308-309 (citing Shane v. Hobam, Inc., 332 F. Supp. 526 (E.D. Pa. 1971); Granthum v. Textile Mach. Works, 326 A.2d 449 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974)). The question of whether a transfer transaction was entered into fraudulently must be answered in the context of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (PUFTA). As applicable here, PUFTA provides in pertinent part: Sec. 5104. Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors (a) General rule.--A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (1) with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor * * * [12 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. sec. 5104(a)(1) (West 1999).9] 9“If the debtor intended to hinder or delay a creditor, ‘he had the intent penalized by the statute notwithstanding any other motivation he may have had for the transfer.’” Tiab Communications Corp. v. Keymarket of NEPA, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 2d 925, 935-936 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (quoting 718 Arch St. Associates v. Blatstein, 192 F.3d 88, 97 (3d Cir. 1999)).Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011