holding the burden is on defendant to adduce evidence supporting affirmative defense, not upon movant to negate its existence
Summary of this case from Wagner v. FeldNos. 90-3557, 90-3581.
April 15, 1991.
Appeal from D.Del., Schwartz, J., and Citation 743 F.Supp. 1076.
AFFIRMED.
holding the burden is on defendant to adduce evidence supporting affirmative defense, not upon movant to negate its existence
Summary of this case from Wagner v. Feldholding the burden is on defendant to adduce evidence supporting affirmative defense, not upon movant to negate its existence
Summary of this case from Wagner v. Feldholding that a partner could not unilaterally determine that the other partner was in breach without first providing notice and an opportunity to cure as required by the terms of a partnership agreement
Summary of this case from U.S. Bank Natl Ass'n v. U.S. Timberlands Klamath Fallsfinding "clear and undisputed" the language of the agreement, which stated, "Title to all the monies paid into and/or due and owing said fund shall be vested in and remain exclusively in the trustees of the fund," "makes any delinquent employer contributions vested assets of the plaintiff fund"
Summary of this case from Trs. of the Nat'l Elevator Indus. Pension v. GMS Elevator Servs., Inc.finding the "clear and undisputed language" of the agreement, which stated, "Title to all the monies paid into and/or due and owing said fund shall be vested in and remain exclusively in the trustees of the fund," "makes any delinquent employer contributions vested assets of the plaintiff fund"
Summary of this case from Trustees of Nat. Elevator Ind. Pen. v. Gateway Elevatorrecognizing alter ego theory as "something of a new development in the Delaware state courts"
Summary of this case from Fletcher v. Atex, Inc.relying on the language of the Wage Agreement to determine what constituted plan assets because ERISA does not define assets
Summary of this case from Board of Trustees of Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. J.R.D. Mechanical Services, Inc.observing that "the court by no means holds as a general rule that employers may be liable under ERISA as fiduciaries merely because of delinquent contributions," but finding that delinquent contributions were assets of the fund pursuant to the terms of the wage agreement
Summary of this case from In re Health Partners Medical GroupFull title:Harper v. Delaware Valley Broadcasters, Inc
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Date published: Apr 15, 1991
In light of the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. LaBarbara, 129 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 1997), the…
Roofers Local 30 Combined Welfare Fund v. Lentz McGraneThe ERISA statute does not define what constitutes "plan assets" and courts, therefore, must look to the…