NORANDA ALUMINUM, INC. v. GOLDEN ALUMINUM EXTRUSION, LLC, ET AL. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Sep 29, 2014

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. and Ryan N. Clark, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Noranda Aluminum, Inc.

Attorneys 2:

William W. Jacobs and Thomas M. Ritzert, pro hac vice, Cleveland, Ohio, for the appellant, Noranda Aluminum, Inc.

E. Todd Presnell and Edmund S. Sauer, Nashville, Tennessee for the appellees, Golden Aluminum Extrusion, LLC, et al.

Jonathan M. Cyrluk, pro hac vice, Chicago, Illinois, for the appellees, Golden Aluminum Extrusion, LLC, et al.

Judge(s): BENNETT

The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly held that companies A and B could not be held liable for the allegedly fraudulent sale of equipment by company C because the equipment at issue was fully encumbered by a lien at the time of the sale and, therefore, did not qualify as an asset under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

Attachments: