Continental Holdings, Inc. v. Crown Holdings Incorporated

Filing 56

ORDER AND JUDGMENT regarding Memorandum Opinion 55 . Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, to alter or amend judgment (Filing No. 50 ), insofar as it speaks to alter or amend judgment, is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
successor to CONTINENTAL CAN
COMPANY, INC.,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CROWN HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, )
CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY,
)
INC., and CROWN BEVERAGE
)
PACKAGING, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:09CV362

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the memorandum opinion entered herein this
date,
IT IS ORDERED:
1)

The Court finds that Retired United States District

Court Judge John C. Lifland’s October 17, 2010 JAMS Arbitration
opinion is within the provisions of New York law.
2)

The Court committed no error in finding that Judge

Lifland’s interpretation of Section 10.3(a)(iv) of the Stock
Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) is binding on this Court under the
doctrine of collateral estoppel.
3)

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration or, in the

alternative, to alter or amend judgment (Filing No. 50), in so
far as it speaks to reconsideration, is denied.
4)

Insofar as there remains any questions concerning

Judge Lifland’s interpretation of Section 10.3(a)(iv) of the SPA

and whether plaintiff is obligated to defend or indemnify
defendants for liabilities arising out of the food and beverage
metal can business and the metal can technology of the Companies
and Subsidiaries (as those terms are defined in the SPA) as they
existed at the time of the SPA and which were sold pursuant to
the SPA, the parties are instructed to refer to this order’s
corresponding memorandum opinion.
5)

The Court will not adopt plaintiff’s proposed

additional language in this order and corresponding memorandum
opinion because the language does not correctly represent the
parties’ obligations pursuant to Section 10 of the SPA.
6)

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration or, in the

alternative, to alter or amend judgment (Filing No. 50), insofar
as it speaks to alter or amend judgment, is denied.
DATED this 2nd day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-2-