Tera Xtal Technology Corp. v. GT Advanced Technologies, Inc., 16-cv-91-PB. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
Number: infdco20170215e52
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2017
Summary: FootNotes 1. The claim included storage costs stemming from GTAT's failure to remove the ten nonconforming furnaces. That portion of the claim was ultimately resolved by a court-approved stipulation. 2. This misallocation of time and resources is particularly prejudicial here because delay in resolving TXT's administrative claim could have jeopardized the Debtors' reorganization. See Doc. No. 24-9 at 745 (February 4, 2016 hearing) (bankruptcy court noting, in context of another administrativ
Summary: FootNotes 1. The claim included storage costs stemming from GTAT's failure to remove the ten nonconforming furnaces. That portion of the claim was ultimately resolved by a court-approved stipulation. 2. This misallocation of time and resources is particularly prejudicial here because delay in resolving TXT's administrative claim could have jeopardized the Debtors' reorganization. See Doc. No. 24-9 at 745 (February 4, 2016 hearing) (bankruptcy court noting, in context of another administrative..
More
FootNotes
1. The claim included storage costs stemming from GTAT's failure to remove the ten nonconforming furnaces. That portion of the claim was ultimately resolved by a court-approved stipulation.
2. This misallocation of time and resources is particularly prejudicial here because delay in resolving TXT's administrative claim could have jeopardized the Debtors' reorganization. See Doc. No. 24-9 at 745 (February 4, 2016 hearing) (bankruptcy court noting, in context of another administrative expense claim, that "[i]f the confirmation is delayed, there will be no company"). The entities who committed exit financing to the Debtors conditioned the financing on, inter alia, (1) the Debtors' reorganization plan going into effect by March 7, 2016, (eventually March 14 in the court-approved plan) and (2) the Debtors' having at least $27.5 million in cash when the plan became effective, not including any amounts paid or reserved for administrative expenses. See Doc. No. 24-2 at 174, 205-7; Doc. No. 24-9 at 962.
3. To the extent that TXT contends that its negligence claim should have been treated as a de facto amendment to its original claim, the Debtors argue that the amendment came too late because it was asserted after the bar date for administrative claims. See Doc. No. 24 at 26-28. I need not address this argument, which neither party has adequately analyzed, because TXT waited too long to assert its new claim regardless of whether the claim was subject to the bar date.
4. TXT's negligence claim also fails for a related reason. Under New York law, which the parties agree is the governing law in this case, a voluntary assumption of duty cannot support a negligence claim unless "defendant's conduct placed plaintiff in a more vulnerable position than plaintiff would have been in had defendant done nothing." Heard v. New York, 623 N.E.2d 541, 544 (1993); see also Ward v. Edinburg Marina, 741 N.Y.S.2d 304, 306 (App. Div. 2002). Here, the record does not support a claim that TXT's decision to restart the furnaces without first refurbishing them was in any way based on GTAT's actions in this case. Therefore, even if GTAT had an unexpressed intention to do more than merely assist TXT with the installation of license codes, that unexpressed intention could not make it liable to TXT on a failure-to-warn theory.
Source: Leagle
