The state Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case over whether Pennsylvania’s Mechanics’ Lien Law should be construed liberally, such that the trustees of an employee benefits fund can proceed with mechanics’ lien claims against a real estate developer for money owed to two unions after the contractor who hired them went bankrupt.
At last Wednesday’s arguments in Pittsburgh, a number of the court’s justices seemed reluctant to endorse a theory in which the trustees of a union could be interpreted as a contractor or subcontractor under the state’s Mechanics’ Lien Law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
