Allegheny Intern., Inc., In re
| Decision Date | 21 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-3400,90-3400 |
| Citation | 954 F.2d 167 |
| Parties | 26 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 663, Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,447 In re ALLEGHENY INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al. J. Daniel Snyder, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Stephen Yakopec, Jr., Ronald W. Crouch (argued), Buchanan Ingersoll Professional Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa., for Allegheny Intern., Inc.
Jeffrey S. Powell (argued), Roger L. Taylor, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., for J. Daniel Snyder.
Before HUTCHINSON, COWEN and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
J. Daniel Snyder (Snyder) appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. That order affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The bankruptcy court had disallowed Snyder's claim for compensation in accord with a written employment contract dated April 16, 1986, between Snyder and Allegheny International, Incorporated (Allegheny), the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. We will vacate the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court and remand the case to the district court so that it may vacate the bankruptcy court's judgment and remand the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The bankruptcy court had concluded that Snyder's negligence in the performance of contractual duties was a material breach of the 1986 contract. It based that conclusion on findings concerning Snyder's acts and omissions in carrying out his responsibilities under an earlier contract with Allegheny. The bankruptcy court made no findings on the parties' general state of mind or knowledge about Snyder's earlier derelictions when they entered into the 1986 contract. Such findings are necessary under applicable Pennsylvania contract law to dispose of Allegheny's contention that Snyder's pre-contract acts or omissions gave Allegheny the right to terminate Snyder's contract. 1 More specifically, further findings are needed on whether Snyder knowingly misrepresented sales and cost figures for the subsidiaries he had previously supervised for Allegheny, concealed accounting improprieties in those divisions that would have been material to Allegheny's decision to promote him, or knowingly failed to disclose them when he knew or should have known that Allegheny would rely on the false figures in promoting him, and whether Allegheny acted negligently in not discovering the truth before promoting Snyder or is otherwise precluded from relying on Snyder's misrepresentation, concealment or failure to disclose.
On February 20, 1988, Allegheny filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, 11 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101-1174 (West Supp.1991), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Snyder filed a claim against Allegheny in the Chapter 11 proceeding alleging that Allegheny owed him $1,378,650.00 under his employment agreement with Allegheny. He also sought interest, costs and attorney's fees. Allegheny objected to Snyder's claim contending that he was terminated for cause.
On October 30, 1989, after an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court sustained Allegheny's objection to Snyder's claim. The court held that Allegheny's evidence was sufficient to overcome the prima facie validity of the claim. It also held that Snyder failed thereafter to present enough evidence to sustain his claim. Snyder filed a timely notice of appeal to the district court from the bankruptcy court's judgment. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 158(c) (West Supp.1991); Bankr.R. 8002. The district court affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court in an order and accompanying memorandum opinion. Snyder then filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court's judgment. That appeal is now before us for decision.
Snyder's career with Allegheny began when he started working for True Temper, a subsidiary of Allegheny, on April 19, 1976. Snyder left True Temper on September 22, 1978, but returned to work for Allegheny on December 1, 1979. He received various promotions over the next five years and acquired something of a reputation as a "turn-around specialist," i.e., an executive who could turn an unprofitable operation into a money-maker. In 1984, Snyder became President of Allegheny's Engineered Products Division. In that position, he was responsible for nine of Allegheny's subsidiaries, including Bra-Con Industries (Bra-Con) and Sciaky Brothers (Sciaky), two troubled subsidiaries whose reports projected a loss for the year ending December, 1984, when Snyder took over. The initial reports after Snyder took over conformed to his reputation as a "turn-around specialist". For example, they showed a turn-around from a projected loss of $200,000.00 at Bra-Con in October to a profit after taxes of $316,000.00 by December. His reputation enhanced, Snyder became responsible for eight more of Allegheny's subsidiaries in May of 1985.
A year later, in April of 1986, Snyder's superiors at Allegheny decided to promote him to Vice President in Charge of Operations Planning. On April 16, 1986, Snyder and Allegheny executed a written employment agreement designating Snyder Vice President in Charge of Operations Planning. This agreement was signed on Allegheny's behalf by F. George Scott (Scott), Allegheny's Senior Vice President of Human Resources, and attested to by another person whose position with Allegheny does not appear and whose signature is illegible. The contract gives no indication on its face that it is not immediately effective or otherwise conditioned on later ratification by any other person or body within Allegheny. Snyder testified that this promotion changed his role with Allegheny and that he no longer was responsible for the seventeen subsidiaries that included Bra-Con and Sciaky.
Under the 1986 agreement, Snyder was obligated to "use his best efforts to promote the interest of" Allegheny and to "exert his best and most diligent efforts to perform the services and undertake the duties" assigned to him by Allegheny. Appellee's Supplemental Appendix (Supp.App.) at 3. Paragraph four of the agreement made Snyder's new employment contract effective for an indefinite term. It provided in relevant part:
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date set forth in the opening paragraph hereof [April 16, 1986] and shall continue until the occurrence of one of the following events described in clauses (a) through (d), at which time the term hereof shall cease and the employment provided for hereunder and the obligation of the Corporation [Allegheny] to pay and provide the salary provided hereinabove shall terminate, (a) the death or permanent disability of Employee [Snyder], (b) the voluntary termination of his employment with the Corporation by the Employee following the giving of the required notice by him as described in the immediately succeeding sentence, (c) the breach of this Agreement by Employee, or (d) three years after the date the Corporation shall have notified the Employee in writing that it elects to terminate his employment hereunder.
Appellant's Appendix (App.) at 19-20.
Thereafter, on July 22, 1986, the agreement dated April 16, 1986 was submitted for approval to Allegheny's Management and Human Resources Committee (Committee). It was approved that same day. By this time, however, Snyder's superior, Robert J. Buckley (Buckley), Allegheny's Chairman and Chief Operating Officer, had become aware of serious questions concerning the accuracy of the figures that indicated Bra-Con and Sciaky had become profitable under Snyder's tutelage by the end of 1984 and had continued to be profitable in 1985 and 1986.
Allegheny had adopted a Statement of Corporate Policy for its executives like Snyder. It was in effect both before and after execution and approval of Snyder's 1986 contract as Vice President in Charge of Operations Planning. The policy statement required Snyder's Supp.App. at 45.
In January of 1986, in a series of letters to Buckley, Snyder submitted his annual affirmation that he knew of no transaction or event that had violated Allegheny's corporate policies at Bra-Con, Sciaky or the other Allegheny subsidiaries over which he had general supervisory responsibility. Sometime in April or May of 1986, however, Brian Roche (Roche), Allegheny's Director of Internal Audit, was directed to conduct an investigation and audit of Bra-Con and Sciaky. It is not clear whether Roche was told to conduct that investigation before Snyder's contract was signed on April 16. There is, however, no evidence in the record to show that any of Snyder's superiors knew of the improprieties before July 16, 1986 when Buckley, Scott, Roche and Snyder met to discuss the result of Roche's investigation.
Roche proceeded to look into the accounting practices of Bra-Con and Sciaky during the years 1984, 1985 and 1986. He concluded that, at Snyder's direction, sales of equipment at Bra-Con and Sciaky were recognized earlier than they should have been. Specifically, Bra-Con recognized $10,000,000.00 of sales in the fourth quarter of 1984 that it should not have recognized until 1985. Sciaky likewise recognized $6,000,000.00 of sales in the fourth quarter of 1984 that it should have recognized in 1985. The bankruptcy court found that these early recognitions "substantially inflated" the 1984 operating results for the subsidiaries and that the false enhancement allowed Bra-Con to show a profit. As previously stated, the forecast for Bra-Con prepared by a predecessor of Snyder, as of October, 1984, had predicted a loss. Similar discrepancies were noted for the years 1985 and 1986.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Premier Golf Props., LP
...claim's validity by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Consol. Pioneer Mortg. , 178 B.R. at 226 (quoting In re Allegheny Int'l, Inc. , 954 F.2d 167, 173–74 (3d Cir. 1992) ).Reconsideration Under FRCP 54(b)FRCP 54(b) addresses judgment on multiple claims or involving multiple parties. An......
-
Saudi Basic Industries Corporation v. Exxonmobil Corporation
...unilateral mistake when the non-mistaken party "' knows or has reason to know of the unilateral mistake'", In re Allegheny International, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 180 (3d Cir. 1992)(citations omitted), here SABIC has not plead any facts of its "unilateral mistake", much less Exxon's knowledge of......
-
Saudi Basic Industries Corp. v. Exxonmobil Corp.
...unilateral mistake when the non-mistaken party "' knows or has reason to know of the unilateral mistake'", In re Allegheny International, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 180 (3d Cir. 1992)(citations omitted), here SABIC has not pled any facts of its "unilateral mistake", much less Exxon's knowledge of ......
-
Samson v. W. Capital Partners LLC (In re Blixseth)
...3001(f), the burden shifts to the claimants to prove the validity of their claims by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Allegheny Int'l, Inc. 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3 rd Cir. 1992). In this case, Samson has presented sufficient evidence to overcome the prima facie effect given to WCP's c......
-
Here Lions Roam: Cisg as the Measure of a Claim's Value and Validity and a Debtor's Dischargeability
...LEXIS 143957, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2013); In re Oneida Ltd., 400 B.R. 384, 389 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009); In re Allegheny Int'l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992); Wright v. Holm (In re Holm), 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991).67. See, e.g., In re Motors Liquidation Co., No. 12 C......
-
Three and a Half Rules for Tort Claims in (and out of) Chapter 11.
...burdens of proof, production and persuasion regarding claims against which an objection has been filed, see In re Allegheny Intern, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992); In re F-Squared Inv. Mgmt, LLC, 546 B.R. at (45) See In re Eagle-Picher Indus, 203 B.R. 256, 262 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1......
-
The Implications of a Jeopardy! Computer Named Watson: Beating Corporate Boards of Directors at Fiduciary Duties?
...of the corporation to the director's personal interests, though the bad faith label was not attached. See In re Allegheny Int'l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 180 (3d Cir. 118. See Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919). 119. Generally, courts have opined that if a corporation has the fin......
-
Chapter 9, B. Proof of Claim
...1985).[232] Amatex Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., et al., 107 B.R. 856 (E.D. Pa. 1989).[233] In re Allegheny International Inc. 954 F.2d 167 (3d Cir. 1992).[234] In re Pettibone Corp. (claim of Rodney Hunt), 123 B.R. 304 at 308 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1990).[235] In re Pettibone Corp., 156......