SOLIS v. KORESKO et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE OBJECTION BY THE NEWELL PLAN (DOC. NO. 1441 ), IS SUSTAINED. THE NEWELL PLAN IS CONSIDERED SEPARATE FOR PURPOSES OF THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRUSTS' ASSETS/ MARCUM A ND WILMINGTON TRUST WILL WORK TOGETHER TO DISENTANGLE THE NEWELL PLAN ASSETS AND ANY ISSUES THAT ARISE BY SUCH PROCESS ARE REFERRED TO JUDGE HEY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 8/8/2017. 8/8/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, COUNSEL AND J. KORESKO AND E-MAILED.(amas)
Case 2:09-cv-00988-WB Document 1545-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,
SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
JOHN J. KORESKO, V, et al.
AND NOW, this
, 201 7, upon consideration
of the Department of Labor's Motion for Equitable Distribution (Doc. 1384), the Unified
Model of Distribution, the Objection filed by W. S. Newell & Sons, Inc. (Doc. 1441), the
DOL's initial response (Doc. 1448), the supplemental briefing and accompanying
documentation (Docs. 1478, 1479, 1516, and 1517), the additional documentation and
accounting provided by Marcum, the transcript of the hearing held on May 25, 2017, and
after careful and independent review of the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED.
2. The Objection by the Newell Plan (Doc. 1441) is SUSTAINED.
Case 2:09-cv-00988-WB Document 1545-1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 2 of 2
3. The Newell Plan is considered separate for purposes of the equitable
distribution of the Trusts' assets.
4. Marcum and Wilmington Trust will work together to disentangle the Newell
Plan assets and any issues that arise by such process are referred to Judge Hey.
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?