Legal Opinion

Mitsubishi Corp. v. Goldmark Plastic Compounds, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 16, 2006No. 2:02CV1975Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CERCONE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Mitsubishi Corporation (“MC”) commenced this action seeking redress for Goldmark Plastic Compounds, Inc.’s (“Goldmark Plastic”) failure to satisfy a promissory note and to establish Goldmark Plastics International, Inc., GPC Plastic Sales Corporation, Stanley R. Goldmark and Kenneth Gross’s (collectively “the Goldmark parties”) liability for the unsatisfied debt pursuant to “guarantee” and corporate subordination agreements as-sertedly securing the promissory note. Defendants joined Aristech Chemical Corporation (“Aristech”) and Sunoco, Inc.,…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Williams v. Borough of West ChesterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
  5. State, Dept. of Environ. Protect. v. Ventron Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1983

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API