Skip to main content

Tronox Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (In Re Tronox Inc.)

NYSBMay 11, 2011No. 18-08298Cited 8 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Allan L. Gropper
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy proceeding (In Re Tronox Inc.) before New York Southern Bankruptcy Court

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Bankruptcy court ruling in Tronox Inc. proceeding involving claims against Anadarko Petroleum Corp. regarding environmental liabilities and asset transfers.

What This Ruling Means

**Tronox Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. - What Workers Need to Know** This case involved a bankruptcy dispute between two companies over environmental cleanup costs. Tronox Inc., a chemical company, went bankrupt and claimed that its former parent company, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., had improperly transferred assets away from Tronox while leaving behind massive environmental liabilities. Essentially, Tronox argued that Anadarko had stripped away valuable assets but left Tronox stuck with expensive pollution cleanup responsibilities, which contributed to Tronox's financial collapse. The bankruptcy court issued a mixed ruling, meaning both sides won some arguments and lost others. The court found merit in some of Tronox's claims about improper asset transfers but didn't rule entirely in their favor on all issues. **Why this matters for workers:** When companies face environmental liabilities or other major debts, corporate restructuring decisions can directly impact employees. If a parent company strips assets from a subsidiary while leaving behind debts, it can lead to bankruptcy, job losses, and reduced benefits. Workers should pay attention to major corporate transactions at their companies, as these moves can affect job security and retirement benefits, especially when environmental cleanup costs are involved.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Cimarex Energy Co. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Tex. App.—8th Dist.Mar 2019
Defendant Win
Tro-X, L.P. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
Tex.May 2018
Defendant Win
Tronox Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (In re Tronox Inc.)
S.D.N.Y.Feb 2016
Dismissed
Kain
Unknown CourtJan 1894

<p>Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made ¡November 22, 1892, which, affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon an order dismissing the complaint on trial and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.</p> <p>This was a judgment creditor’s action brought by plaintiff, as administratrix of David Kain, deceased, to have adjudged and declared fraudulent and void as to her intestate, a transfer of certain real estate made by the defendant, Patrick Larkin, to his daughter, Mary E. Larkin, an infant.</p> <p>The material facts are stated in the opinion.</p> <p>The sufficiency of a pleading cannot be raised for the first time in the Court of Appeals. It cannot consider a matter or subject that has not been presented by adjudication to, and determined by, the subordinate court. It has no power to review errors not pointed out by exceptions taken at a proper time. (Code Civ. Pro. §§ 996, 1337; Hofheimer v, Campbell, 59 N. Y. 269; 271, 272 ; Delaney v. Brett. 51 id. 78, 82; S. O. Co. v. A. Ins. Co., 79 id. 506; Knapp v. Simon, 96 id. 291, 292; Duryea v. Vosburgh, 121 id. 57.) Under the liberal construction required to be given to a pleading by the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 519), the complaint sufficiently alleges that Patrick Larkin transferred, after the commencement of plaintiff’s suit on her lawful demand, the entire property, real and personal, of which he was the owner. (Zabriskie v. Smith, 13 N. Y. 330; Marie v. Garrison, 83 id. 23, 28 ; Sanders v. Soutter, 126 id. 196; Hale v. O. N. Bank, 49 id. 626; People v. Rider, 12 id. 433; Seeley v. Engell, 13 id. 548.) The cause of action set forth in the complaint is statutory, and the facts essential to the cause of action are alleged in the language of the statute. (Code Civ. Pro. § 1871; Cole v. Jessup, 10 N. Y. 103, 104; Ford v. Babcock, 2 Sandf. 518; R. R. Co. v. Robinson, 133 N. Y. 242; Knapp v. City of Brooklyn,

Defendant Win
Navy Federal Credit Union v. Purse (In re Purse)
GASBAug 2015
Dismissed

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.