Legal Opinion
Austrian Airlines Oesterreichische Luftverkehrs AG v. UT Finance Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 18, 2008No. 04 Civ. 3854 (LAK)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.
During the 1990’s, United Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) was anxious to have Austrian Airlines specify jet engines made by one of UTC’s affiliates for use on new aircraft being ordered by Austrian. It entered into a somewhat complex deal pursuant to which Austrian agreed to do so, and a UTC affiliate, UT Finance Corporation (“UTF”), probably as a “sweetener,” agreed to buy a particular used aircraft from Austrian some years in the future for a price in excess of $30 million. But buying a jet aircraft for future delivery for more than $30 million is…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Dallas Aerospace, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Cis Air Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Rose v. Spa Realty AssociatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Fasolino Foods Co., Inc. v. Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, Third-Party v. Antonio R. Fasolino, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Rje Corp. v. Northville Industries Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- Schenectady Steel Co. v. Bruno Trimpoli General Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Adstra, LLC v. Kinesso, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2025
- Austrian Airlines Oesterreichishe Luftverkehrs AG v. UT Finance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- Austrian Airlines Oesterreichishe Luftverkehrs AG v. UT Finance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- First Technology Capital, Inc. v. Airborne, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 2017