Case Law In re Mushroom Transp. Co., Inc.

In re Mushroom Transp. Co., Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (58) Cited in (271) Related (1)

Appeal from the District Court, Eduardo C. Robreno, J.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kent Cprek (Argued), Jennings Sigmond, The Penn Mutual Towers, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellants, Mushroom Transportation Co., Inc.; Penn York Realty Co., Inc.; Robbey Realty, Inc.; Jeoffrey L. Burtch; Trux Enterprises, Inc.; Freight Drivers & Helpers Local 557 Pension Fund; and Daniel L. Sandy.

Vincent P. Szeligo, Wick, Streiff, Meyer, Metz & O'Boyle, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellants, William J. Einhorn; Raymond A. Huber; Hubert C. Dietrich; Robert J. Ewanco; William D. Gross; Thomas R. Johnston; Joseph P. Santone; William J. Dillner, Jr.; James H. Hutchinson, Jr.; John P. O'Connor; and Anthony R. Simoes.

Pace Reich (Argued), Elkins Park, PA, for Appellees, Pincus, Verlin, Hahn & Reich, P.C.; Pincus, Reich, Hahn, Dubroff & Ganz, P.C.; Pincus, Verlin, Bluestein, Hahn & Reich, P.C.; and Pace Reich.

Andrew F. Napoli, Hochberg, Napoli & Diamond, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees, Pincus, Verlin, Hahn & Reich, P.C.; and Andrew F. Napoli.

Edward I. Swichar (Argued), Blank Rome, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee, Continental Bank.

Laura S. Clare, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Wilmington, DE, for Appellee Edwin L. Pincus.

Richard L. Hahn, Villanova, PA, for Appellee, Richard L. Hahn.

Arthur W. Lefco (Argued), Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee, Jerome J. Verlin.

Ernest J. Bernabei, III (Argued), Harvey, Pennington, Cabot, Griffith & Renneisen, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee, Herman P. Weinberg.

Allen B. Dubroff, Jaffe, Friedman, Schuman, Nemeroff, Applebaum & McCaffery, Elkins Park, PA, for Appellee, Allen B. Dubroff.

Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FISHER and ALARCÓN,* Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal requires us to consider a bankruptcy debtor-in-possession's ability to invoke the discovery rule to toll the statutes of limitations on the debtor's claims arising out of its lawyer's embezzlement of estate funds. The bankruptcy and district courts here found that despite the lawyer's embezzlement and non-disclosure of such embezzlement to his client, the debtor, the debtor could not, as a matter of law, establish that it acted with reasonable diligence in ferreting out the embezzlement that formed the basis of its causes of action.

Because we believe that the decisions below establish a policy that fosters lawyers' abuse of their fiduciary relationships with their clients, and fail adequately to protect the justifiable reliance of clients on their lawyers' probity and trustworthiness, we will reverse and remand for further proceedings concerning the applicability of the discovery rule to the debtor's claims against its lawyer's law firm and the law firm's individual shareholders. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in Continental Bank's favor, however, on the alternative ground that Pennsylvania's Uniform Fiduciaries Act, which immunizes banks from liability arising out of good faith transfers of funds, shields Continental from liability because it transferred the eventually embezzled funds in good faith to an authorized recipient, the debtor's lawyer. We will also affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Continental and the debtor's law firm on the breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA.

I. Background

The claims in this appeal arise out of the embezzlement of funds belonging to the bankruptcy estates of Mushroom Transportation Company, Inc. ("MTC") and related debtor companies, Robbey Realty, Inc., Penn York Realty Company, Inc., Trux Enterprises, Inc. and Leazit, Inc. (collectively "Mushroom") by Jonathan Ganz, legal counsel to the bankruptcy estates. Mushroom, through its trustee, and various pension plans and their administrators (the "Pension Plan Plaintiffs") (together with the trustee, "Appellants"), instituted claims in two adversary proceedings against Continental Bank,1 Pincus, Verlin, Hahn & Reich, P.C. ("PVHR")2 (the law firm with which Ganz was a partner), and various of PVHR's individual shareholder lawyers (collectively "Defendants" and "Appellees"), seeking to hold them liable for the consequences of Ganz's embezzlement.

MTC and its related subsidiaries and entities filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on June 24, 1985. The bankruptcy court ordered that the petitions of the related entities be jointly administered. By virtue of the Chapter 11 petitions, Mushroom became the debtor-in-possession, and remained such until December 1990, when the bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding. The events relevant to this appeal occurred during the Chapter 11 bankruptcy, prior to the Chapter 7 conversion.

Mushroom retained the services of PVHR, through Ganz, to provide legal representation during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings. Within six months of the filing of the Chapter 11 petitions, Mushroom ceased operations and began to liquidate assets. On February 27, 1986, the bankruptcy court appointed Michael C. Arnold, MTC's executive vice president "Special Liquidation Consultant" to assist in the liquidation, and Mushroom proceeded under his leadership to liquidate a significant portion of assets.

Mushroom allocated a large percentage of the liquidation proceeds to satisfying a substantial debt owed to Continental, a secured creditor who held a perfected security interest in all of Mushroom's assets. On June 16, 1986, following repayment of some of the debt to Continental, the bankruptcy court, with the consent of the parties, authorized the opening of an escrow account at Continental to hold the balance of proceeds generated from the sale of Mushroom's assets not yet paid to Continental.

In a letter to Ganz dated February 12, 1987, Arnold informed Ganz that he (Arnold) and Robert B. Cutaiar, MTC's president, were handling the day-to-day operations of the debtors. The letter requested an accounting of the proceeds of one of Mushroom's realty sales and a report of Mushroom's assets held by Continental, and informed Ganz that Arnold anticipated a "further reduction" in his (Arnold's) involvement in the bankruptcy proceedings by March of 1987. Ganz responded to Arnold's letter by correspondence dated February 17, 1987, which stated that Continental held approximately $986,000 "in various escrow accounts," and that PVHR held additional funds for the final real estate settlements in "escrow accounts."

In June 1987, Continental and PVHR, as counsel to Mushroom, entered into a bankruptcy court-approved payment stipulation (the "Stipulation"), which Ganz signed on behalf of PVHR as "Counsel to Debtors." The Stipulation provided for the repayment of the balance of the debt owed to Continental from the funds held in the escrow account at Continental. Once Mushroom satisfied its debt to Continental, the Stipulation required Continental to turn over any remaining funds in the escrow account to PVHR, "to be held in escrow for the benefit of the Debtor's estate...." In September 1987, at Ganz's urging, the bankruptcy court excused Mushroom from the statutory requirement to file monthly operating statements.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, and following satisfaction of the debt owed to it, Continental issued a $200,000 treasurer's check dated July 21, 1987, payable to Ganz, "Council [sic] for Debtor in Possession." On August 3, 1987, Continental deposited the remaining $766,624.49 balance into an escrow account at Continental that had been opened by Ganz under the name of MTC, with Jonathan Ganz, c/o PVHR, as escrow agent for Mushroom.

Between August 3, 1987 and April 26, 1988, Ganz misappropriated more than one-half million dollars of the transferred funds. In the interim, Arnold had contacted Ganz on several occasions inquiring about the transferred funds. In late 198...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2012
Edmonson v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
"...of administrative and ministerial tasks by a mere custodian of plan assets does not amount to practical control. In re Mushroom Transp. Co., 382 F.3d 325, 347 (3d Cir.2004) (granting summary judgment to defendant because “[n]either the allegations nor the evidence [ ] suggest that [defendan..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2011
Nagy v. Dewese
"...the fund can draw checks,” does not constitute an exercise of “authority or control” or confer fiduciary status. In re Mushroom Transp. Co., 382 F.3d 325, 346–47 (3d Cir.2004) (citing Wettlin, 237 F.3d at 275). The Third Circuit's reasoning in Wettlin and subsequent cases sheds light on wha..."
Document | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland – 2016
Roman v. Sage Title Grp., LLC
"...the promisee.”Id.Until the occurrence of such a condition, legal title to the property remains in the depositor.In re Mushroom Transp. Co. , 382 F.3d 325, 338 n. 9 (3d Cir.2004) (citation omitted; applying Pennsylvania law). “[E]scrow agents owe their depositors a fiduciary duty to disburse..."
Document | District of Columbia Circuit – 2014
In re Hall
"...whose title is in dispute.” (Citations omitted.) • In addition, a turnover claim is an equitable claim, Burtch v. Ganz (In re Mushroom Transp. Co.), 382 F.3d 325, 337 (3d Cir.2004), and based on equitable defenses, the court may deny turnover. See In re Kabler, 230 B.R. 525, 526 (Bankr.E.D...."
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2007
In re Jamuna Real Estate LLC
"...regarding ERISA actions. See, e.g., In re Mushroom Transportation Co., 282 B.R. 805, 826 (E.D.Pa.2002) reversed on other grounds, 382 F.3d 325 (3d Cir.2004); Guardsmark, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Tenn., 313 F.Supp.2d 739, 751 (W.D.Tenn.2004). However, the allegation that Mrs. Ba..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 22-2, June 2006
W. Marion Wilson, Trust Me, I'm a Lawyer: Restoring Faith in Fiduciaries by Dumping "due Diligence" and Tolling the Statute of Limitations for Postpetition Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Chapter 11
"...to ensure unsecured creditors have efficient remedies to enforce fiduciary duties). 4 See Burtch v. Ganz (In re Mushroom Transp. Co.), 382 F.3d 325, 331 (3d Cir. 2004). 5 See 1 CALVIN W. CORMAN, LIMITATION OF ACTIONS 4-7 (1991); 2 CALVIN W. CORMAN, LIMITATION OF ACTIONS 134-36 (1991). 6 See..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2014
Inside The Courts - November 2014 | Volume 6 | Issue 4
"...toll the statute of limitations under the discov- ery rule. The Third Circuit pointed to its earlier decision, In re Mushroom Transportation Co., 382 F.3d 325, 343 (3d Cir. 2004), as “provid[ing] standards for applying the discovery rule in cases involving the statute of limitations applica..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 22-2, June 2006
W. Marion Wilson, Trust Me, I'm a Lawyer: Restoring Faith in Fiduciaries by Dumping "due Diligence" and Tolling the Statute of Limitations for Postpetition Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Chapter 11
"...to ensure unsecured creditors have efficient remedies to enforce fiduciary duties). 4 See Burtch v. Ganz (In re Mushroom Transp. Co.), 382 F.3d 325, 331 (3d Cir. 2004). 5 See 1 CALVIN W. CORMAN, LIMITATION OF ACTIONS 4-7 (1991); 2 CALVIN W. CORMAN, LIMITATION OF ACTIONS 134-36 (1991). 6 See..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2012
Edmonson v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
"...of administrative and ministerial tasks by a mere custodian of plan assets does not amount to practical control. In re Mushroom Transp. Co., 382 F.3d 325, 347 (3d Cir.2004) (granting summary judgment to defendant because “[n]either the allegations nor the evidence [ ] suggest that [defendan..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2011
Nagy v. Dewese
"...the fund can draw checks,” does not constitute an exercise of “authority or control” or confer fiduciary status. In re Mushroom Transp. Co., 382 F.3d 325, 346–47 (3d Cir.2004) (citing Wettlin, 237 F.3d at 275). The Third Circuit's reasoning in Wettlin and subsequent cases sheds light on wha..."
Document | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland – 2016
Roman v. Sage Title Grp., LLC
"...the promisee.”Id.Until the occurrence of such a condition, legal title to the property remains in the depositor.In re Mushroom Transp. Co. , 382 F.3d 325, 338 n. 9 (3d Cir.2004) (citation omitted; applying Pennsylvania law). “[E]scrow agents owe their depositors a fiduciary duty to disburse..."
Document | District of Columbia Circuit – 2014
In re Hall
"...whose title is in dispute.” (Citations omitted.) • In addition, a turnover claim is an equitable claim, Burtch v. Ganz (In re Mushroom Transp. Co.), 382 F.3d 325, 337 (3d Cir.2004), and based on equitable defenses, the court may deny turnover. See In re Kabler, 230 B.R. 525, 526 (Bankr.E.D...."
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2007
In re Jamuna Real Estate LLC
"...regarding ERISA actions. See, e.g., In re Mushroom Transportation Co., 282 B.R. 805, 826 (E.D.Pa.2002) reversed on other grounds, 382 F.3d 325 (3d Cir.2004); Guardsmark, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Tenn., 313 F.Supp.2d 739, 751 (W.D.Tenn.2004). However, the allegation that Mrs. Ba..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 firm's commentaries
Document | JD Supra United States – 2014
Inside The Courts - November 2014 | Volume 6 | Issue 4
"...toll the statute of limitations under the discov- ery rule. The Third Circuit pointed to its earlier decision, In re Mushroom Transportation Co., 382 F.3d 325, 343 (3d Cir. 2004), as “provid[ing] standards for applying the discovery rule in cases involving the statute of limitations applica..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial