United States Sixth Circuit

In an interpleader action involving conflicting claims to stock plaintiff-bank received from Prudential Insurance Company of America's demutualization, summary judgment determining the priority of claims is reversed in part and vacated in part where: 1) both Kentucky law and the nature of demutualization compelled a conclusion that defendants-employees were entitled to the proceeds; and 2) a parent company could not have had any claim to demutualization proceeds because it never held any ownership interest in Prudential.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/22/2006
• Published 11/22/2006

Judges

• Before:  BATCHELDER and MOORE, Circuit Judges;  COHN, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Leon Dayan, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC, for Appellants.  Mark S. Riddle, Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Michael C. Merrick, Frank P. Doheny, Jr., Dinsmore & Shohl, Louisville, Kentucky, Leon Dayan, Lisa M. Powell, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.  Mark S. Riddle, Melissa Norman Bork, Benjamin J. Evans, Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.