Document 3Q9bpkgj6E6ar3KD7NaOYDkME

FILE NAME: Celanese (CEL) DATE: 1999 DOC#: CEL005 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Answer of Defendant in Albright vs HNA Holdings KAY-IO-99 MON 13:41 P.02 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG f Received SEP t 8 1998 IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT D lV iSSN 98-C V S -9679 GARY ROBERT ALBRIGHT, et al. ) ) PlaintifFs, ) ) v. ) ) HNA HOLDINGS, IN C., also know n as ) TREVIRA, INC. form erly HOECHST ) CELANESEj INC. and FIBER ) INDUSTRIES, INC., ) ) D efendants. ) J ANSWER The defendant HN A H oldings, Inc. ("HNA H oldings") answ ering the plaintiffs' com plaint. alleges and says that: FIRST DEFENSE (Specifically Responding to the Numbered Paragraphs in the Complaint - Section I. Identification of Parties and Jurisdiction) 1. The defendant has insufficient inform ation to form a b elief as to the truth o f the allegations in Paragraph 1 o f the com plaint and accordingly denies the same. 2. The allegations in Paragraph 2 o f the com plaint include legal conclusions to w hich no response is required. To the extent Paragraph 2 alleges facts, the defendant has insufficient inform ation to form a b elief as to the truth o f those allegations and accordingly denies the same. 3. T he defendant has insufficient inform ation to form a b elief as to the truth o f the allegations in Paragraph 3 o f the com plaint and accordingly denies the same. 4 - 39. T he defendant has insufficient inform ation to form a b elief as to the allegations in Paragraphs 4 through 39 o f the com plaint and accordingly denies the same. P FM -CH 1/3030SH .1 05/10/99 13:45 TX/RX NO.3874 P.002 ,, f O - 9 9 NON 13141 P. 03 , 40. W ith a sp e c t to the allegations in Paragraph 40 o f the com plaint, it is adm itted that thedefendantHNA Holdings is a corporation organized under the law s o f th e State o f Delaware and is duly licensed and/or authorized to do business in die State o f N orth Carolina. It is further admitted that HNA Holdings owns the fiber manufacturing facility in Salisbury, N orth Carolina that a t one tim e w as ow ned by Fiber Industries, Inc. Except as herein specifically adm itted, the allegations o f Paragraph 40 o f the complaint ate denied. 41. W ith respect to the allegations in Paragraph 41 o f th e com plaint, it is adm itted that the F iber Industries plant in Salisbury, N orth C arolina began operations in 1966- It is further admitted that Fiber Industries, Inc, was originally incorporated as Lindum Fibers Corporation, w hich was organized as a jo in t venture between Celanese Corporation o f A m erica and Im perial Chem ical Industries, Inc. It is further adm itted that when Celanese C orporation m erged w ith American H oechst Corporation, the new company, Hoechst Celanese Corporation, owned the fiber m anufacturing plant in Salisbury, N orth Carolina. Except as herein specifically adm itted, the allegations o f Paragraph 41 o f the com plaint are denied. 42. W ith respect to the allegations in Paragraph 42 o f the com plaint, it is adm itted that H N A H oldings is the current ow ner o f fire fiber m anufacturing plant in Salisbury, N orth C arolina and is fee proper party defendant in this case. Except as herein specifically adm itted, the allegations o f Paragraph 42 o f the com plaint are denied. (Specifically Responding to the Allegations o f Section IL First Cause of Action - Negligence) 43. T he defendant reasserts and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 42 o f the first defense o f this answer. P iA B -C til/'S eS o sa.l 2 05/10/99 13:45 TX/RX NO.3874 P.003