- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011