St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Pepsico, Inc., Pepsico, Inc., Third-Party v. Banner Industries, Inc., Third-Party

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “Caplin is not control- ling” where claims vindicate derivative injuries to the full cred- itor constituency
• noting that purpose of Rule 54(b) is served by exercise of jurisdiction where justification for certification is clear on record
• explaining that alter ego claims, if proved, would have the effect of bringing the property of the non-debtor into the debtor’s estate
• excusing inadequate explanation because, inter 10 alia, reason for certification was “readily apparent from the record” and appeal presented “a distinct 11 and separable part of the suit”
• interpreting state law to allow corporations to bring alter ego actions against a parent because it prevents injustice and allowing third party creditors to only bring personal and not general alter ego type claims
• interpreting state law to allow corporations to bring alter ego actions against a parent because it prevents injustice and allowing third party creditors to only bring personal and not general alter ego type claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).