Judge: USA Fanter no longer interested in IPI limited receivership

USA Fanter Corp. Ltd., which has received a sufficient bond secured by Imperial Pacific International LLC, is no longer interested in IPI’s limited receivership, Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the U.S. District Court for the NMI stated in an order Tuesday.

“IPI has fulfilled its promise to secure a bond totaling $2,450,000,” she added.

In her order, the judge also granted IPI’s motion to stay judgement pending appeal; to approve the appeal bond; to stay the execution of the judgment pending appeal; and to stay the receivership.

According to the chief judge, “The court finds that IPI has fulfilled its obligation to satisfy the bond requirements under Rule 62(b) and Local Rule 62.1 and therefore a stay of USA Fanter’s judgment pending appeal is appropriate.”

She said, “Because all means of satisfaction of judgment are now stayed, relief from the limited receivership as applied to this case is warranted.”

Moreover, because the bond has been satisfied pursuant to Rule 62(b), “all means of judgment including foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien is now stayed,” the judge said.

USA Fanter’s motion to foreclose mechanic’s lien is now deemed withdrawn and/or moot, she added.

An online legal dictionary defines a mechanic’s lien as “a legal claim for unpaid construction work.”

The judge noted that her recent decision “does not dissolve the receivership as it applies to other creditors just yet.”

USA Fanter Corp. Ltd., sued IPI for failing to pay the full contract amount due for labor and materials the plaintiff provided for the improvement of IPI’s real property in Garapan.

The lawsuit stated that IPI had paid USA Fanter $300,000 only, but the unpaid balance due was not less than $2,089,345.28.

IPI, which is facing several other lawsuits from vendors or former employees, shut down in March 2020 amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

Commonwealth Casino Commission Executive Director Andrew Yeom, for his part, has filed four complaints against IPI and sought the revocation of the casino investor’s exclusive license for its failure to pay the annual license fee and regulatory fee, among other violations.

Visited 4 times, 1 visit(s) today
[social_share]

Weekly Poll

Latest E-edition

Please login to access your e-Edition.

+