Connect with us

Pennsylvania

Costa Rican Sociedad Anónima Not Amenable To Pennsylvania Charging Order In Estate Of Lieberman

Published

on

Costa Rican Sociedad Anónima Not Amenable To Pennsylvania Charging Order In Estate Of Lieberman


The Property of Dr. Richard Lieberman obtained a judgment for about $1.8 million in opposition to a Costa Rica company known as Playa Dulce Vida, S.A., in an motion earlier than the U.S. District Court docket for the Japanese District of Pennsylvania. The Property then utilized to the Court docket for a charging order in opposition to the Costa Rica company, arguing {that a} Costa Rica “S.A”, or Sociedad Anónima, is akin to a U.S. restricted legal responsibility firm, and thus ought to be topic to a charging order beneath the Pennsylvania charging order statute. So, the query earlier than the Court docket was whether or not a charging order ought to be issued in opposition to a Sociedad Anónima, which is a very fashionable type of entity nationwide.

The Court docket in a Memorandum Opinion in Property of Lieberman v. Playa Dulce Vida, S.A., 2023 WL 138317 (E.D.Pa., Jan. 9, 2023), answered this query within the adverse, and denied the applying for a charging order. There have been two causes for this denial, each of that are fascinating in their very own method.

Advertisement

First, it’s clear {that a} Sociedad Anónima is a type of company and never an LLC. Thus, the Pennsylvania Uniform Restricted Legal responsibility Firm Act wouldn’t apply to an S.A. usually, nor would the charging order provision apply to an S.A. extra particularly. That is fascinating as a result of, simply as america has varied forms of enterprise entities, so do different nations have their very own varied forms of enterprise entities. Thus, what may cross for an company or partnership in a single nation is perhaps handled as one thing else totally overseas.

When one begins to think about the worldwide economic system in opposition to the backdrop of the myriad of forms of entities arising out of Anglo-American widespread regulation, European and Latin American civil regulation, broadly differing types of Asian regulation and extra, then one can start to know the magnitude of the problem. Within the U.S. at the very least, we clear up that drawback by hammering unusual non-U.S. entities into acquainted U.S. pigeonholes, primarily based on such components as how they actually function, their historic background, how they’re handled for tax functions, and quite a few different components. With the Sociedad Anónima, nonetheless, it’s comparatively simple as a result of it’s clear that S.A.’s are merely types of companies, and never LLCs or partnerships or trusts or the rest.

The second concern recognized by the Court docket is fascinating in a totally completely different and rather more sensible method. Essentially, a charging order is a treatment that’s utilized by a judgment creditor to ascertain a lien on the financial rights of an LLC or partnership curiosity that’s owned by the judgment debtor. On this case, nonetheless, the Property sought a charging order in opposition to the judgment debtor itself, PDV, which makes completely no sense if one even minimally comprehends how a charging order is meant to work.

In different phrases, you do not get a charging order in opposition to the debtor itself ― it doesn’t matter what kind of entity it’s ― however as an alternative you get a charging order in opposition to issues which can be owned by the debtor, if these issues are pursuits in different LLCs or partnerships. The charging order then creates a lien on these LLC or partnership pursuits which can be owned by the debtor, and redirects any funds to the creditor to successfully scale back these liens. For the Property right here to use for a charging order in opposition to the debtor itself demonstrates that the Property’s attorneys very basically misunderstood the treatment of a charging order and its operation.

Advertisement

This now brings us to but a 3rd concern raised by the Court docket’s Memorandum, however not mentioned by it: What does the Property have to do to gather on its judgment in opposition to PDV? The Property’s judgment is a U.S. judgment, which implies that it is just good within the U.S. until acknowledged elsewhere. Thus, until and till the Property has the judgment acknowledged someplace else, it is going to be caught with accumulating solely in opposition to PDV’s property. Nonetheless, as a overseas firm, PDV may or may not have any property throughout the U.S. to gather in opposition to ― the Memorandum simply doesn’t say both method.

What the Memorandum does say is that PDV owns and operates a resort in Costa Rica, which would appear like a juicy asset for any creditor. Can the Property get on the Costa Rica resort with its U.S. judgment? The reply right here is probably going within the adverse, until there are different issues happening that we do not learn about. A U.S. judgment, and even a judgment by a U.S. District Court docket, sometimes has no assortment worth outdoors the borders of the U.S., for the reason that Court docket’s jurisdiction and thus its enforcement means stops on the border.

With particular person debtors, typically a U.S. court docket can order the person debtor to carry (“repatriate”) sure forms of property again to the U.S. in order that these property might be made accessible to collectors. If the person debtor refuses, the U.S. court docket can maintain the debtor in contempt and even incarcerate the debtor till the repatriation is made. Nonetheless, that is often solely good for liquid property, comparable to moneys in financial institution accounts, and never actual property ― though in some circumstances, a court docket may order the debtor to liquidate the property overseas and return the proceeds to the U.S.

The issue with entity debtors, comparable to PDV, is that they whereas they are often held in contempt, they can’t be incarcerated, so the one factor {that a} court docket can do to an entity within the occasion of contempt is to impose financial fines. However this then places the debtor again to Sq. One when it comes to discovering property to fulfill the superb.

Thus, on this case, if the Property needs to gather in opposition to PDV, it should have its U.S. judgment acknowledged in Costa Rica. However that is not fairly as simple because it sounds. Costa Rica is just not managed by the U.S. Structure which has a “Full Religion and Credit score” clause that makes the registration of most judgments between states and with the federal authorities a breeze generally. Thus, until there may be some treaty in impact between the U.S. and Costa Rica, the latter would not must routinely register the U.S. judgment as a matter in fact.

Advertisement

What this implies is that the Property should search to register its U.S. judgment in Costa Rica. I’ve completely no thought what this entails beneath Costa Rican regulation, however sometimes most nations both have a statute that enables for the registration of overseas cash judgments or they require a brand new lawsuit on the overseas judgment to be introduced domestically to ascertain it as a neighborhood judgment. However some nations don’t permit both of those procedures, and as an alternative require that the entire lawsuit be tried ab initio as if the overseas proceedings by no means occurred.

Assuming that the Property can acquire a Costa Rican judgment in opposition to PDV a technique or one other, then the judgment enforcement proceedings will happen within the Costa Rican courts and can make the most of Costa Rican procedures. Once more, who is aware of what these procedures is perhaps like, however being a civil regulation nation they’re in all probability radically completely different in kind, however maybe not a lot in consequence, than a levy beneath Anglo-American regulation. After all, native Costa Rican counsel should be retained to undertake this judgment enforcement.

It may also be attainable for the Property to attempt to intercept moneys paid by U.S. vacationers to PDV in New York, by which most such worldwide transactions cross. In that occasion, the Property must register its judgment from the Japanese District of Pennsylvania to the Southern District of New York, after which it must work out how such moneys stream. Presumably, an project order might be obtained to then choose up bank card funds to PDV. Not simple, however not unattainable both. Such intercepted funds may or may not pay the judgment totally, however they could carry PDV to the desk for a settlement lengthy prematurely of Costa Rican proceedings threatening the sale of the resort.

Anyway, these are the kinds of points that judgment enforcement attorneys comparable to myself must take care of often, and this case on the very least has given me the chance for instance them for many who are in any other case unfamiliar.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pennsylvania

Millions in PA dairy farmer aid proposed to cut insurance costs

Published

on

Millions in PA dairy farmer aid proposed to cut insurance costs


This story was produced by the State College regional bureau of Spotlight PA, an independent, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to investigative and public-service journalism for Pennsylvania. Sign up for our north-central Pa. newsletter, Talk of the Town, at spotlightpa.org/newsletters/talkofthetown.

BELLEFONTE — As part of his administration’s efforts to bolster the agriculture industry through state spending, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro wants to use millions of dollars to connect more Pennsylvania farmers to a federal dairy program.

The governor’s budget pitch includes $5.6 million to create a state subsidy that would lessen sign-up costs for the federal Dairy Margin Coverage Protection Program, which gives farmers direct payments to help them deal with volatile milk and feed prices.

The dairy industry requires a large amount of initial capital investment, and there’s no guarantee that market prices will stay the same each month, so making a profit is difficult, said Jayne Sebright, executive director of Pennsylvania’s Center for Dairy Excellence. The center operates within the state Department of Agriculture.

Advertisement

William Thiele, a sixth-generation dairy farmer in Butler County, equated the price fluctuations to riding a roller coaster. He signed up for the federal program — which works like an insurance plan — to curb some risks.

Funded by the federal Farm Bill in 2018, the program pays farmers when the difference between the national milk price and the average feed cost falls below a certain threshold.

Coverage levels range from $4 to $9.50 per 100 pounds of milk. The most basic protection is free except for a $100 administrative fee required for all participants.

Yearly premiums can range between $118 and $7,000, depending on various factors — like the coverage level and what percentage of coverage participants want.

In such a shifting market, costs deter participation, Sebright said.

Advertisement

“It’s a tight business we’re in,” Ed Hartman, a dairy farmer with operations in Berks and Lancaster Counties, told Spotlight PA. “You have to watch every dollar.”

Some farmers choose not to participate because they don’t want government support, Thiele said. Others might not know it exists, he added.

Pennsylvania has 4,940 dairy farms, according to state data. Of those, 1,778 are enrolled in the federal program, which made $102 million in payments statewide last year.

Christopher Allen Wolf, an agricultural economics professor at Cornell University, said participation in the federal program offers farmers, especially smaller ones, a safe way to reduce risks.

“Our hope is that by sharing the costs, more dairy farmers will take advantage of the federal program,” Shannon Powers, a Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture spokesperson, told Spotlight PA.

Advertisement

Minnesota incentivizes participation through its Dairy Assistance, Investment, Relief Initiative. The state’s $8 million program, launched in 2019, made payments to operations that produced less than 16 million pounds of milk and enrolled for five years of federal coverage.

Before DAIRI, low milk prices and high feed costs had the dairy industry in crisis, said Paul Hugunin, a division director at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

The state subsidy, Hugunin said, was a way to give farmers direct cash with long-term benefits. Since 2020, Minnesota has received more than $245 million in federal dairy margin coverage payments.

“We got a heck of a deal for $8 million,” Hugunin said.

State Reps. Emily Kinkead (D., Allegheny) and Marci Mustello (R., Butler) are using Minnesota as a model as they craft legislation that would enable the governor’s pitch.

Advertisement

“There’s no sense in trying to reinvent the wheel,” Kinkead told Spotlight PA.

The 2018 Farm Bill expired in December, but after Congress couldn’t agree on an updated version, lawmakers extended the provisions through the rest of 2024. Any legislation creating a subsidy in Pennsylvania would apply to future dairy margin coverage cycles, Mustello said.

Agriculture investments have received bipartisan support in the General Assembly, but total spending faces an uphill legislative battle. Republicans, including those who control the state Senate, say the governor’s overall proposed budget is fiscally irresponsible.

State Sen. Elder Vogel (R., Beaver), who chairs his chamber’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, said the proposed agriculture spending, $599 million total, is “a pretty fair budget.” Vogel, also a dairy farmer, told Spotlight PA he supports efforts to stabilize his industry amid fluctuating prices.

Along with the proposed subsidy program, Shapiro wants to use a portion of the $5.6 million to create a specialist position in the state Department of Agriculture that would advocate for the industry and its farmers.

Advertisement

State Rep. Dan Moul (R., Adams) previously told Spotlight PA he wasn’t convinced all of the proposed investments were necessary, including the subsidy program, a $10.3 million grant program for innovation, and additional staffing for the agriculture department. He’d rather see money go toward expanding farmers’ access to broadband.

SUPPORT THIS JOURNALISM and help us reinvigorate local news in north-central Pennsylvania at spotlightpa.org/donate/statecollege. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability and public-service journalism that gets results.



Source link

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania’s mandatory life sentence for 2nd-degree murder denies redemption, former inmate says

Published

on

Pennsylvania’s mandatory life sentence for 2nd-degree murder denies redemption, former inmate says


PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — As a young man on the streets of Homewood, Robby Wideman was bound for trouble. At just 24, he got involved in a robbery gone wrong. Things went south when his accomplice shot and killed the victim, and Wideman went to prison for life without the possibility of parole, even though he didn’t pull the trigger.

“I was involved in a man getting killed. I didn’t kill him. Didn’t expect it to happen. I was in that lifestyle. So, I don’t say, ‘oh, I should have never went to prison.’ Yeah, I should went to prison for what I did, but for life?” he said. 

Like more than 1,000 other state inmates serving life for second-degree murder, Wideman was given a future without hope. Opponents call it death by incarceration — a punishment both cruel and unusual and a violation of both the state and U.S. constitutions, denying an inmate any chance of redemption. 

“It discourages a man from trying to change almost. I know you can understand that. In some way it makes sense. Why should I? You tell me I’m never going home,” Wideman said. 

Advertisement

But now the state Supreme Court will hear the case that may change that. This fall, it will take up the sentencing of another local young man involved in a similar robbery gone bad. 

Even though Derek Lee did not pull the trigger in a homicide in the city’s West End ten years ago, he’s serving mandatory life. His attorneys are asking the courts to declare the sentence unconstitutional, allow Lee to be re-sentenced and open the door for others. 

Wideman says not only would the state save about $50,000 a year for housing each inmate, communities would benefit from the re-entry of reformed inmates. 

“If the court overturns second-degree murder and quits putting people in prison who didn’t kill anyone, society is going to win,” Wideman said.

Even though he had no chance at freedom, Wideman did change for the good. In prison, he quit drugs and alcohol, became a counselor to other inmates and earned a degree. His struggle became the subject of the book “Brothers and Keepers” — a memoir by his brother John Edgar Wideman, the nationally renowned Pittsburgh novelist. Finally, after 44 years in prison, then-Gov. Tom Wolf commuted Wideman’s sentence.  

Advertisement

Today, Wideman runs a three-quarter house for former inmates, giving them a place to live, job training and the support they need to re-enter society. Wideman says he is dedicating the rest of his life to using his hard-won experience and wisdom to help others. His hope is that lifers like him will someday get parole and join the others.   

“Trying to help people. For me, that’s what it’s about. That’s what it’s about. I made a promise to the guys that I left behind that I would and I’m trying my best to hold up my word,” he said.

This case is expected to go in front of the state Supreme Court in October, but Gov. Josh Shapiro has already weighed in, filing a surprise brief asking the court to declare these mandatory sentences unconstitutional. 

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Delaware police at standoff occuring in Chester, Pennsylvania; part of I-95 NB closed

Published

on

Delaware police at standoff occuring in Chester, Pennsylvania; part of I-95 NB closed


play

A portion of northbound I-95 is closed in Pennsylvania following a police chase that started in Delaware, according to news reports.

Delaware State Police and Wilmington Police did not immediately respond to emails sent Tuesday afternoon seeking comment about the incident, but in video streaming on 6ABC’s website, vehicles from those two Delaware police agencies are seen at a standoff in Chester, Pennsylvania.

Advertisement

6ABC is reporting that police were in pursuit of a shooting suspect in Delaware before this standoff occurred near 12th and Kerlin streets in Chester.

6ABC video shows a maroon vehicle with what appears to be bullet holes. There’s also an overturned SUV and a large police presence, some with their guns drawn.

This is a developing story. Check back with delawareonline.com for more information.

Send tips or story ideas to Esteban Parra at (302) 324-2299 or eparra@delawareonline.com.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending