Where Are They Now, Part Six: An Update On Developments In ... · of selling, installing, and repairing insulation, includ-ing asbestos-containing insulation products,3 but it had

MEALEY’STMTM

Asbestos BankruptcyReport

Where Are They Now, Part Six:An Update On Developments In Asbestos-RelatedBankruptcy Cases

byMark D. PlevinLeslie A. DavisandTacie H. Yoon

Crowell & Moring LLP

A commentary articlereprinted from the

February 2012 issue ofMealey’s AsbestosBankruptcy Report

Commentary

Where Are They Now, Part Six:An Update On Developments In Asbestos-Related Bankruptcy Cases

ByMark D. PlevinLeslie A. DavisandTacie H. Yoon

[Editor’s Note: Mr. Plevin, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Yoonare, respectively a partner, a counsel, and an associate atCrowell & Moring LLP, practicing in the bankruptcy,litigation, and insurance coverage areas. They haverepresented insurers in asbestos, silica, and other masstort bankruptcy cases, including many of the cases men-tioned below, and in coverage cases involving asbestosdefendants. The views expressed herein are the authors’own, not necessarily those of their firm or their clients.Copyright # 2012 by Mark D. Plevin, Leslie A. Davis,and Tacie H. Yoon. Responses are welcome.]

Since 2001, we have been reporting in these pages onthe status of asbestos-related bankruptcy cases.1 In ourlast report, published in March, 2009, we observedthat the pace of asbestos-related bankruptcy filingshad begun to pick up somewhat, that some of thepreviously-filed bankruptcy cases had moved towardan exit, and that some asbestos bankruptcy cases wereresolved, or may be resolved, without § 524(g) relief.

Since then, there have been several new asbestos bank-ruptcy filings, but the pace of new filings has slowed.The nature of debtors seeking bankruptcy relief due toasbestos-related claims seems to be shifting, as are thereasons they may seek to do so. Discovery from co-defendants regarding claims filed against existing bank-ruptcy trusts remains a hotly contested issue, as is theclaims estimation issue. Other perennial issues, such asinsurance neutrality, insurer standing, and preemptionof anti-assignment provisions in insurance policies, haveretained prominence in decided cases.

This article updates our last five by noting theasbestos-related bankruptcies that have been filedsince our 2009 article, summarizing some key devel-opments in asbestos bankruptcies that were pendingwhen we last wrote, and discussing some of the sig-nificant themes that have developed in these cases. Atthe end of the article, before the endnotes, we presentupdated versions of three charts appended to our lastarticle: one listing asbestos bankruptcies that havebeen filed so far, in chronological order; one providingthe same information, with the debtors listed in alpha-betical order; and a third listing the case numbers ofasbestos bankruptcies, the status of the plans in thosecases, and the published decisions that have arisenfrom those cases. We have been keeping these chartsupdated in real time on our web site, accessible atwww.crowell.com/asbestosbankruptcy, and we intendto continue to keep these charts up-to-date on ourweb site as a resource available to those interested inthis field.2

1. Who Filed the Most Recent AsbestosBankruptcies?

Plant Insulation. Plant Insulation Company filed avoluntary petition under Chapter 11 on May 20,2009 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the NorthernDistrict of California. Plant had been in the businessof selling, installing, and repairing insulation, includ-ing asbestos-containing insulation products,3 but ithad ceased doing business in 2001. At the time ofits bankruptcy filing, it claimed that it was a defendantin thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits.4

1

MEALEY’S Asbestos Bankruptcy Report Vol. 11, #7 February 2012

In January, 2006, Plant commenced a declaratory judg-ment action against its insurers in California state court,seeking a determination regarding the existence of cov-erage for its asbestos liabilities.5 A key issue in the cover-age litigation is whether Plant’s insurers – who claimthat their policies’ aggregate limits were exhausted bythe pre-petition payment of claims against Plant – areobligated to provide additional coverage, on the theorythat the claims against Plant are ‘‘operations claims’’(sometimes called ‘‘non-products claims’’) not subjectto the policies’ aggregate limits. On July 12, 2010,the Bankruptcy Court entered an order modifyingthe automatic stay to permit the coverage action tocontinue.

On May 2, 2011, Plant, the ACC, and the FCR fileda Second Amended Plan of Reorganization and a dis-closure statement relating thereto.6 The plan providesfor the merger of Plant and a small Northern Califor-nia insulation contractor, Bayside Insulation & Con-struction, with Plant as the surviving entity and thereorganized debtor using Bayside’s name.7 The planproponents sought the merger of Plant and Bayside (anon-debtor, and not an affiliate of Plant) in order toestablish an operating business for Plant, to satisfy therequirements of § 524(g).8 They claimed that themerger was also intended to settle successor liabilityclaims that had been alleged against Bayside in ahandful of state court suits filed pre-petition.9 Theplan provides that the § 524(g) trust that would beformed if the plan is confirmed would use insurancesettlement proceeds to infuse money into Bayside,thus purportedly making the reorganized debtor fea-sible as required by § 1129(a)(11) of the BankruptcyCode. The insurers argued that plan provisions requir-ing the trust to fund Bayside turned § 524(g) on itshead, since the statute requires that the debtor fundthe trust.

The plan also contained a channeling injunction thatwould bar non-settled insurers from asserting contri-bution claims against insurers that had settled dis-puted coverage claims with Plant, without providingcompensation for the enjoined contribution claims.This was significant because the plan provided that,following confirmation, asbestos claimants would bepermitted to sue the reorganized debtor in the tortsystem for the purpose of establishing liability andattempting to access insurance issued by the non-settled insurers. The non-settled insurers would be

called upon to defend and pay the tort system claims,but without being able to assert contribution claimsagainst settled insurers as permitted under Californialaw. This too made the plan unique, according to theinsurers.

Plant’s non-settled insurers filed a motion for sum-mary judgment asserting that the plan could not beconfirmed as a matter of law because of its treatmentof their contribution rights.10 The bankruptcy courtagreed that the plan should include a provision that‘‘adequately preserves the non-bankruptcy rights ofthe non-settling insurers’’ to receive ‘‘a credit againsttheir liability’’ in direct actions that could be pursuedby asbestos claimants under the plan.11 The plan pro-ponents then filed a plan amendment which merelystated that non-settled insurers could assert a claim fora credit, offset, or judgment reduction in a directaction.12 The insurers filed a second summary judg-ment motion asserting that the plan, as amended, stilldid not provide sufficient compensation for theirenjoined contribution rights.13 The court agreedthat the plan’s treatment of insurers’ contributionrights was still inadequate,14 but before the courtissued a formal ruling, plan proponents filed anotherplan amendment,15 which the court held would beconsidered at the confirmation hearing, where planproponents would be required to show that theinjunction barring the non-settled insurers fromasserting contribution claims was fair and equitableto the non-settled insurers, and that neither sidewould be ‘‘grossly and systematically over or under-compensated’’ if the injunction issued.16

Plant’s insurers objected to confirmation of the planon a variety of grounds, including (i) the injunctionagainst contribution claims was not ‘‘fair and equita-ble,’’ (ii) Plant is not a going concern and the reorga-nized debtor will not be feasible, (iii) the plan was notproposed in good faith, and (iv) the plan does notsatisfy the requirements of § 524(g).17

The bankruptcy court held a confirmation hearingfrom December 5 to 14, 2011, and heard closingarguments on January 12, 2012. The bankruptcycourt has not yet ruled.

General Motors. On June 1, 2009, General MotorsCorporation and certain of its subsidiaries filed Chap-ter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the

2

Vol. 11, #7 February 2012 MEALEY’S Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

Southern District of New York.18 Days later, the bank-ruptcy court approved the sale of substantially all of thecompany’s assets to a new U.S. Government-financedcompany now known as General Motors Company(‘‘New GM’’); the debtor company was renamedMotors Liquidation Company.19 Motors Liquidationretained certain assets and substantial liabilities, includ-ing liability for asbestos personal injury claims againstGeneral Motors.20 According to the debtors, approxi-mately 29,000 asbestos personal injury claims werepending against General Motors as of the petitiondate.21

On June 7, 2009, an ad hoc committee of asbestosclaimants filed a motion seeking the appointment ofan ACC and an FCR.22 Ultimately, an FCR wasappointed pursuant to the debtors’ motion,23 and theU.S. Trustee appointed an ACC.24

Debtors filed a plan of liquidation and a related disclo-sure statement on August 31, 2010.25 On October 14,2010, the FCR objected to the adequacy of the dis-closure statement, arguing that it should not beapproved because it described a patently unconfirmableplan because, inter alia, it improperly relied on§ 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to effect the trust-injunction mechanism set forth in § 524(g) of theBankruptcy Code without satisfying the requirementsof § 524(g).26

On December 7, 2010, debtors filed an amended planof liquidation and disclosure statement. Pursuant tothe amended plan, asbestos personal injury claimswould be channeled to a trust funded with $625 mil-lion, an amount that was equivalent to debtors’ esti-mate of their total current and future asbestos-relatedliabilities. Asbestos claims against debtors and certainthird parties, including New GM and debtors’insurers, would be enjoined.27 The ACC and FCRargued that debtors’ proposed trust funding was mate-rially less than debtors’ actual aggregate liability forpresent and future asbestos claims, while the commit-tee representing non-asbestos creditors argued that the$625 million reserve was much more than debtors’aggregate liability.28 Debtors, the two committees,and the FCR engaged in estimation-related litiga-tion,29 and ultimately entered into a stipulation,later approved by the court, that estimated debtors’aggregate asbestos liability at $625 million.30

On March 29, 2011, the bankruptcy court confirmedthe Motors Liquidation Chapter 11 plan. Pursuant tothe plan, current and future asbestos personal injuryclaims were channeled to a trust pursuant to aninjunction issued under § 105(a) of the BankruptcyCode. The trust, which will resolve and pay claimspursuant to trust distribution procedures, was fundedwith $2 million in cash, and a claim for the aggregateamount of GM’s asbestos liabilities – $625 million –which was treated under the plan as an allowed unse-cured claim. The trust did not receive any of GM’sinsurance policies or rights to those policies.

Durabla. On December 15, 2009, Durabla Manu-facturing Company filed a Chapter 11 petition in theU.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.Durabla formerly distributed sheet gasket materialand cut gaskets, some of which may have containedasbestos.

As of the petition date, Durabla claimed to haveapproximately 180,000 asbestos claims pendingagainst it.31 Shortly after the petition was filed,Durabla Canada, a company sharing ownership ofDurabla, filed an adversary proceeding seeking adeclaration that it was not liable for Durabla’s asbestosliabilities under alleged alter-ego theories and an orderthat it would not be required to use its assets to payDurabla’s asbestos liabilities.32 On November 8,2010, Durabla Canada filed its own Chapter 11 peti-tion, which is being jointly administered with Dura-bla’s case. 33

On May 18, 2010, a group of asbestos personal injuryplaintiffs moved to dismiss Durabla’s bankruptcycase, arguing that it was filed in bad faith for theimproper purpose of protecting its officers and corpo-rate affiliates because Durabla itself is not conductingbusiness and has no business to reorganize.34 Durablaopposed the motion, arguing that the bankruptcyproceeding would preserve and maximize assets forcreditors’ benefit and establish an equitable meansfor distributing those assets.35 Durabla also arguedthat the automatic stay preserved its remaining insur-ance coverage for the benefit of the asbestos creditors.On October 6, 2010, the bankruptcy court denied themotion without explanation.36 The asbestos plaintiffsmoved the bankruptcy court to reconsider its ruling,37

but the court has not ruled on the motion.

3


On September 21, 2011, Durabla and DurablaCanada filed a § 524(g) plan of reorganization jointlywith the ACC and the FCR, along with a disclosurestatement describing the plan.38 After the bankruptcycourt approved the disclosure statement, DurablaCanada and two of its insurers reached an agreementin principle whereby the insurers would pay a total of$4.9 million (Canadian) to the proposed § 524(g)trust and receive protection under the proposed§ 524(g) injunction.39 Debtors filed a motion toapprove a supplemental disclosure statement describ-ing proposed changes to the plan pursuant to thatsettlement, which has not yet been heard by thecourt. No date for the hearing on plan confirmationhas yet been scheduled.

Specialty Products/Bondex. Specialty ProductsHolding Corp., a holding company, and one of itssubsidiaries, Bondex International, filed Chapter 11petitions on May 31, 2010 in the U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the District of Delaware.40 The cases arebeing jointly administered.41 On the same day, thedebtors filed an adversary proceeding seeking toextend the automatic stay to asbestos claims againstRPM International, the debtors’ parent company.42

On July 20, 2011, the court entered an order authoriz-ing debtors to issue a personal injury questionnaire(‘‘PIQ’’) to all mesothelioma claimants with a lawsuitpending against debtors, and ordered that responses befiled 90 days after the date the PIQ was served.43 Theapproved PIQ seeks information about the claim, thelaw firm representing the claimant, the disease diagno-sis, alleged exposure to debtors’ products or to otherasbestos-containing products, litigation relating to thealleged asbestos exposure, and claims submitted toasbestos trusts.44 The court has scheduled an estimationhearing to be held from July 9-13, 2012.45

On November 14, 2011, the ACC and the FCRmoved for an order authorizing them to prosecute,on behalf of debtors’ estates, an avoidance actionagainst RPM.46 The ACC and the FCR argue thatRPM engaged in a ‘‘decade-long plan to unfairly andfraudulently escape’’ its asbestos liabilities, and thatRPM, its subsidiaries, officers, directors, and attorneys‘‘undertook a course of conduct that ultimatelyresulted in the transfer of approximately 75% of theDebtors’ assets to a Byzantine corporate structureconsisting of a series of holding companies and

subsidiaries.’’47 The ACC and the FCR furtherclaim that RPM destroyed hard drives and other com-puter equipment containing relevant historical infor-mation, and that the destruction occurred during theplanning for debtors’ bankruptcy and after RPM wassued in asbestos-related cases alleging successor liabi-lity.48 RPM and debtors filed objections to the ACC’sand FCR’s motion.49 A hearing was held on thismotion on January 23, 2012, during which debtors’counsel reported that he was negotiating a tollingagreement.

Garlock. On June 5, 2010, Garlock Sealing Technol-ogies, a manufacturer of fluid-sealing products,including gaskets and packing materials, filed a Chap-ter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theWestern District of North Carolina. Co-debtors withGarlock are Garrison Litigation Management Group,an affiliate that was created in 1996 to manage thedefense and settlement of asbestos claims against Gar-lock, and Anchor Packing, a former subsidiary of Gar-lock which ceased doing business in 1994 and is nowa subsidiary of Garrison.50 According to the petition,thousands of unliquidated asbestos claims are pendingagainst Garlock in state and federal courts.51 Garlockasserts that, as a result of the dozens of bankruptcyfilings by former asbestos co-defendants over theyears, it has been forced to pay ‘‘more than its share’’of liability for asbestos claims, and plans to use its bank-ruptcy case as a means of ‘‘determining and resolving[debtors’] true liability for Asbestos Claims.’’52

On August 31, 2010, Garlock filed a motion to (i)establish an asbestos claims bar date, (ii) approve anasbestos proof of claim form, and (iii) estimate itscurrent and future liability for asbestos claims.53 Gar-lock argued that, in order to ‘‘determine the amountof trust funding necessary to satisfy Garlock’s trueresponsibility for present and future asbestos claims,’’a ‘‘two-step process’’ was required: ‘‘claims allowanceand claims estimation.’’54 Garlock argued that the bardate and claims allowance process is a ‘‘necessary firststep’’ to determining the amount and number ofasbestos claims against Garlock, which Garlock ulti-mately will rely upon for purposes of estimating itsaggregate liability and the contribution it must maketo a § 524(g) trust.55 The ACC objected to the bardate motion, arguing that (i) proofs of claim areimpractical and have not been required in asbestosbankruptcy cases, (ii) Garlock’s proposed claims

4


allowance process would require an inordinate amountof time and expense, and (iii) the bankruptcy courtlacks jurisdiction to determine the validity of personalinjury claims.56

On December 9, 2010, the bankruptcy court deniedthe bar date motion without prejudice.57 Pursuant tothe order, the parties were given until May 12, 2011to engage in discovery to obtain asbestos claims dataand other evidence to support their respective experts’theories and analyses for purposes of estimating Gar-lock’s asbestos liabilities. The order also permitted theACC and the FCR to investigate pre-petition related-entity transfers. Garlock renewed the bar date motionon May 3, 2011,58 and the bankruptcy court deniedthe renewed motion on May 19, 2011.59

Garlock’s claims estimation process is ongoing. Thebankruptcy court ruled that Garlock would be per-mitted to require persons who had asserted asbestosclaims against Garlock as of the petition date basedon an alleged mesothelioma diagnosis to provideinformation specified in a questionnaire and setNovember 1, 2011 as the deadline for responses.60

On December 2, 2011, debtors filed a motion forestimation of present and future asbestos claims, begin-ning with mesothelioma claims, and proposed that theestimation hearing start in December, 2012.61 Garlockalso moved to set a bar date applicable to questionnaireresponders, because of the low number of responses tothe questionnaire,62 to compel responses to its ques-tionnaire, and to disallow claims of non-complyingmesothelioma claimants as a sanction for their con-tinuing failure to respond to the questionnaire asordered by the court.63 These motions have not yetbeen decided.

On November 28, 2011, debtors filed a joint plan ofreorganization and a proposed disclosure statement.64

The plan proposes to establish a § 524(g) trust whichwould be funded by a $60 million cash contributionand a promissory note with a net present value of$140 million, which would be guaranteed by Gar-lock’s parent and secured by 51% of the votingstock of Reorganized Garlock and Reorganized Garri-son.65 According to the plan, Reorganized Garlockwould pay all allowed current asbestos claims in fullin cash, and the § 524(g) trust would pay future asbes-tos claims in full in cash.66 Claimants may be paidpursuant to a settlement option under the terms of the

Claims Resolution Procedures, or claimants maychose to litigate their claims against ReorganizedGST or the trust. Persons whose claims are on acourt’s inactive docket would receive a medical mon-itoring payment from the trust, and if the claimant islater diagnosed with an asbestos-caused cancer, theclaimant would be eligible to recover from the trustpursuant to the Claims Resolution Procedures. If theplan is confirmed, all future and inactive asbestosclaims would be channeled to the trust, and unlessotherwise provided, claimants would be enjoinedfrom pursuing their claims against the debtors, thereorganized debtors, and other parties protectedunder the channeling injunction.67

Leslie Controls. On July 12, 2010, Leslie Controlsfiled a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 in theU.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.Leslie’s case was a ‘‘pre-negotiated bankruptcy’’ – onthe petition date, the debtor filed a plan that had beenagreed to by counsel for asbestos claimants and anFCR appointed by debtor pre-petition, but votingon the plan took place post-petition, after a disclosurestatement was approved by the court. An amendedplan and disclosure statement were filed in August,2010.68 Leslie’s plan proposed to establish a trustunder § 524(g) and a channeling injunction thatwould channel to the trust all asbestos-related claimsand demands against Leslie, its parent companyCIRCOR International, CIRCOR’s affiliated entities,and Leslie’s former parent Watts Water Technologiesand its affiliates.69

Leslie’s insurers objected to the plan’s treatment ofinsurance.70 The insurers also objected to the FCR’sappointment, arguing that he was not ‘‘disinterested’’as required by the Bankruptcy Code because he washired by Leslie before the bankruptcy was filed.71

During discovery, the court resolved a dispute overLeslie’s objections to document discovery sought bythe insurers. The insurers sought production of legalmemos prepared by Leslie’s counsel regarding itsinsurance claims that Leslie shared with lawyers forclaimants and the FCR before they all reached agree-ment on a plan. Leslie, the ACC, and the FCR arguedthat the documents at issue were protected from dis-covery by a ‘‘common interest’’ privilege; the insurersargued that any such privilege could not protect docu-ments exchanged among parties who at the time were

5


engaged in plan negotiations with one another. Thebankruptcy court sustained the objections and ruledthat common interest privilege was applicable to thedocuments.72

In October, 2010, three months after the petition wasfiled, the bankruptcy court held a confirmation hear-ing. At the outset, the court found that Leslie’sinsurers lacked standing to participate in the confir-mation hearing.73 The bankruptcy court then con-firmed Leslie’s plan.74 After several appeals weretaken and fully briefed in the district court, the planproponents and Leslie’s insurers resolved their dis-putes through agreed ‘‘insurance neutrality’’ amend-ments to the plan and confirmation order. Theinsurers withdrew their confirmation objections andappeals based on the negotiated resolution of theirconcerns, and the plan was confirmed by the districtcourt on January 18, 2011.75

Triple A. Triple A Machine Shop filed a voluntaryChapter 7 case on August 16, 2010 in the U.S. Bank-ruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.Soon after, several law firms representing asbestos clai-mants, and some individual asbestos claimants,sought relief from the automatic stay to continue pro-secuting claims against Triple A in the tort system.76

An ad hoc committee of asbestos creditors, comprisedof attorneys for asbestos claimants, supported the stayrelief motions.77 The bankruptcy court granted thestay relief motions on November 9, 2010, pursuantto an agreed form of order that ensured that Triple A’sinsurers would receive prompt notice of any newasbestos suits.78

On July 26, 2011, the Chapter 7 trustee moved topermit Triple A’s insurers to review the company’sbusiness records, select the records the insurers wishedto retain in connection with their ongoing defense ofasbestos claims against Triple A, and then destroy theremaining records.79 The ad hoc committee objectedto the motion, arguing that asbestos claimants againstTriple A had an interest in reviewing debtor’s businessrecords for purposes of establishing their claims.80

The Chapter 7 trustee, the insurers, and the ad hoccommittee ultimately resolved their dispute throughan agreed order providing that the insurers wouldretain custody of debtor’s relevant records on debtor’sbehalf, but permit asbestos plaintiffs’ firms to access

the documents through discovery in underlying tortcases.81

Pulmosan. Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corp. filed aChapter 7 petition on November 15, 2010 in the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NewYork.82 Pulmosan had filed a certificate of dissolutionunder New York law in 1986 and has remained inwind-up since that time because numerous indivi-duals have asserted lawsuits alleging that Pulmosan’sindustrial safety equipment did not adequately protectthem, resulting in injury from asbestos, silica, and/orother mixed dust.83 Pulmosan’s insurer, First State,defended and paid certain of the underlying claims,but the $48 million aggregate limits of First State’spolicies were approaching exhaustion pre-petition.84

First State thus engaged in discussions with Pulmo-san’s sole remaining officer and principal regarding apossible bankruptcy filing to address the claimsagainst Pulmosan in a fair and equitable manner, ulti-mately leading to Pulmosan’s Chapter 7 petition.85

An interim Chapter 7 trustee was appointed shortlyafter the case was filed. No claims filing deadline hasbeen established and the case has been dormant.

State Insulation. On February 23, 2011, State Insu-lation Corp. filed a voluntary petition under Chapter11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofNew Jersey. State Insulation’s bankruptcy case andplan were ‘‘pre-negotiated,’’ with debtor reachingagreement pre-petition with its selected putativeFCR and representatives of asbestos claimants onthe key terms of a proposed § 524(g) plan.86 Accord-ing to debtor, it was first named as a defendant inasbestos-related lawsuits in 1978, but was able tohave many cases dismissed based on evidence showingthat it had not sold asbestos-containing products tothe claimant’s employers or jobsite.87 The claimsasserted against State Insulation have declined signifi-cantly since 1998, with only 39 claims filed against itin 2009. As of the petition date, 90 asbestos-relatedclaims were pending against it.88 State Insulationsought bankruptcy protection because while the overallclaims against it had decreased, the number of mesothe-lioma claims against it had increased, and the decreasein the number of solvent co-defendants had led toincreasing costs to resolve claims. Thus, debtor didnot believe that it would be able to sustain the defenseand resolution of remaining and anticipated claims

6


against it from its remaining insurance and operatingcash flow.89

On January 20, 2012, State Insulation filed a secondamended Chapter 11 plan of reorganization and dis-closure statement.90 The plan proposes to establish a§ 524(g) trust that would be funded by a $1.3 millionpromissory note and $350,000 cash, along with theright to receive proceeds from State Insulation’s asbes-tos insurance.91 No objections to the plan were filed.The confirmation hearing was held on January 23,2012, and on February 10, 2012, the bankruptcycourt recommended that the district court enter anorder confirming the plan.92

United Gilsonite. On March 23, 2011, United Gil-sonite Laboratories (‘‘UGL’’) filed a voluntary Chapter11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theMiddle District of Pennsylvania.93 UGL says that itis a small family-owned company that manufactureswood and masonry finishing products and paint sun-dries.94 From 1954 to 1975, UGL manufacturedasbestos-containing joint compound, which it sold insmall quantities to lumber, hardware, and paint stores;its total revenue from sales of that product was$965,000.95 UGL began to be sued for asbestos-relatedpersonal injury and wrongful death in 1983. UGL andits insurers have paid over $25 million in settlements,and currently are defending approximately 900 pendingcases.96 UGL asserts that it is not in need of financialrestructuring, but filed for bankruptcy in order to seekrelief under § 524(g) to address its current and futureasbestos liabilities in the face of its dwindling insurancecoverage.97 UGL has not yet filed a proposed plan.

C.P. Hall. On June 24, 2011, C.P. Hall Company, aformer distributor of Johns-Manville raw asbestos,filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illi-nois.98 The debtor asserts that it is a non-operatingcompany that has been sued in thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits.99 Although the court initially orderedthat a plan be filed by December 10, 2011, the courtsubsequently extended the debtor’s exclusive periodand its deadline to file a plan until April 20, 2012.100

The debtor’s assets include claims against variousinsurers, including Integrity Insurance Company, aninsolvent insurer which is in liquidation proceedingsin New Jersey, and Columbia Casualty Company, an

excess insurer. Debtor is presently seeking the bank-ruptcy court’s approval of a settlement with Integrityto resolve debtor’s remaining claims against it for$4.125 million, as well as authority to sell its rightsunder the settled claim against Integrity claim for$2.97 million (72% of the face amount of the claim)to an agent for an institutional investor.101 Certainasbestos claimants have opposed debtor’s motion tosell the Integrity claim, alleging that debtor pledgedand assigned the proceeds of the Integrity insurancepolicies to satisfy judgments entered in their favorexceeding $30 million, and that as secured judgmentcreditors, they are entitled to adequate protection.102

Columbia Casualty Company moved for relief fromthe automatic stay in order to pursue discovery fromcertain of the asbestos claimants who have suedColumbia to collect judgments entered pre-petitionagainst C.P. Hall.103 Columbia seeks informationfrom the claimants to determine whether conditionsto coverage have been established, but claimants haveresisted on the grounds that the automatic stay appliesto their state court action against Columbia.104

2. Significant Developments In PendingBankruptcy Cases

Christy Refractories. On July 13, 2011, the bank-ruptcy court entered an order confirming Christy’s§ 524(g) plan.105 The District Court affirmed theinjunctions entered pursuant to § 524(g) on August 19,2011.106

Congoleum. Congoleum’s bankruptcy case, whichbegan as a prepackaged bankruptcy in 2003, was finallyresolved by an order confirming a § 524(g) plan onJune 7, 2010107 and the dismissal of all appeals fromthat order on October 7, 2010.108 Although the bank-ruptcy court had dismissed the case after finding that atwelfth proposed plan was not confirmable as a matterof law,109 the district court reversed that order onappeal, withdrew the reference of the case from thebankruptcy court, and held all subsequent plan-relatedproceedings in the district court.110

When the district court confirmed the plan on June 7,2010, the only objecting parties were certain asbestosclaimants whose pre-petition settlements with Con-goleum were voided pursuant to the plan.111 Theobjecting claimants appealed the confirmation orderto the Third Circuit, but the appeal was dismissed on

7


October 7, 2010 on the grounds that it was equitablymoot because the confirmed plan had been substan-tially consummated.112

Federal-Mogul. On March 24, 2009, the districtcourt affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision hold-ing that the Bankruptcy Code preempted the provi-sions in the appellant insurers’ liability policies thatprohibit assignment of the policies without theinsurers’ consent.113 The district court held that itwas bound by the Third Circuit’s decision in Combus-tion Engineering, which the district court construedto mean that ‘‘§ 1123(a)(5)(B) preempts the anti-assignment provisions in the insurance policies atissue, which thereby permits the transfer of insurancerights to the § 524(g) trust.’’114 On April 23, 2009,certain insurers appealed the district court’s decisionto the Third Circuit.115 On August 6, 2010, theThird Circuit stayed the appeal pending its en bancdecision in Global Industrial Technologies, Inc.(‘‘GIT’’), because the assignment/preemption issuewas one of the issues that had been briefed and waspending before the en banc court in GIT.116 OnJune 3, 2011, after issuing its en banc ruling in GITand remanding the case to the bankruptcy court, theThird Circuit lifted the stay and heard oral argumentof the insurers’ appeal on November 9, 2011.

During 2011, the trust reached a settlement of Fed-eral-Mogul’s state court coverage litigation with twoof its insurers and filed a motion to extend the§ 524(g) injunctions under the Plan to the settlinginsurers. The district court granted that motion onJune 6, 2011.117

G-I Holdings. On November 12, 2009, the dis-trict court and bankruptcy court, which had jointlypresided over the confirmation hearing,118 confirmedG-I’s § 524(g) plan.119 The Internal Revenue Serviceappealed the confirmation order’s finding that the IRSlacked standing to object to confirmation becausethe IRS claim would be paid in full under thePlan.120 The Third Circuit referred the IRS appealto mediation on May 7, 2010.121 After the partiesresolved their dispute, the appeal was dismissed onDecember 28, 2011.122

Global Industrial Technologies/North AmericanRefractories Corp. After the district court affirmedconfirmation of the plan over the objections of several

insurers, those insurers appealed the confirmation rul-ing to the Third Circuit.123 The insurers appealed thelower courts’ rulings that (i) insurers lacked standingto object to plan confirmation and (ii) the BankruptcyCode preempts provisions contained in the insurers’policies that prohibit assignment of the policies with-out insurers’ consent. The Third Circuit held oralargument on the appeal on May 21, 2009, then suasponte ordered re-hearing en banc.124

On May 4, 2011, the en banc Third Circuit issued a6-4 decision holding that the insurers had standing tocontest plan confirmation.125 In sum, the majorityheld that ‘‘when a federal court gives its approval toa plan that allows a party to put its hands into otherpeople’s pockets, the ones with the pockets areentitled to be fully heard and to have their legitimateobjections addressed.’’126 The court remanded thecase to the lower courts for further proceedings inwhich the appellant-insurers would be permitted toparticipate and have their objections heard.

On June 15, 2011, the bankruptcy court held a hear-ing on plan confirmation. After the hearing, the bank-ruptcy court ordered debtors and insurers to mediatetheir dispute.127 No further proceedings regardingplan confirmation have been held in the bankruptcycourt.

Hercules. On December 22, 2009, the bankruptcycourt recommended confirmation of Hercules’ plan ofreorganization, which establishes a trust to pay asbes-tos claims and proposes a channeling injunction pur-suant to § 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.128 OnJanuary 6, 2010, the district court entered an orderconfirming the plan.129

Johns-Manville. Judge Lifland, who fashioned theunderpinnings of § 524(g) in the Johns-Manvillecase, continues to preside over the case as itapproaches its third decade.130 In 2009, the U.S.Supreme Court decided Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey,which addressed the finality of a 1984 settlementbetween Johns-Manville and several of its insurersthat Judge Lifland had approved and incorporatedby reference into the confirmation order in 1986.131

The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit’s deci-sion that the 1986 orders (as clarified and reaffirmedin a 2004 decision of the bankruptcy court) exceededthe bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the

8


Supreme Court held that the settlement agreement andconfirmation order, by their terms, barred direct actionclaims asserted against Travelers, and that the 1986orders were final, pursuant to principles of res judicata,and could not be collaterally attacked, even as towhether the bankruptcy court exceeded its subject mat-ter jurisdiction.132 The Supreme Court did not addresswhich specific parties were bound by the 1986 orders,because the Second Circuit had not addressed thatquestion. The Supreme Court remanded the case tothe Second Circuit for further proceedings.133

On remand, the Second Circuit addressed whether thebankruptcy court’s 1986 settlement approval order andconfirmation order were binding on Chubb, a co-defendant insurer in the direct actions against Travelers.The Second Circuit held that enforcing the ordersagainst Chubb and thus enjoining its contributionclaims against Travelers with respect to the directactions in which both companies were defendantswould violate due process, because Chubb was not aparty to the 1984 settlement between Travelers andManville and did not receive sufficient notice duringthe 1986 proceedings.134 The circuit court thereforeremanded the case to the bankruptcy court with respectto Chubb.135 Travelers filed a petition for a writ ofcertiorari and a writ of mandamus to the SupremeCourt, which was denied on November 29, 2010.136

Subsequently, three groups of plaintiffs in the directactions against Travelers and Chubb moved the bank-ruptcy court to enforce the terms of settlementsentered into in 2004, which required Travelers topay $445 million into separate settlement funds foreach group of plaintiffs.137 Those settlements hadbeen approved by the orders that the Supreme Courtheld in Bailey were immune from collateral attack. Tra-velers asserted that it was released from its paymentobligation because the Second Circuit’s decision thatChubb was not bound by the 1986 order or the laterclarifying order rendered the 2004 settlements a nul-lity.138 The bankruptcy court rejected Travelers’ argu-ments.139 The court further found that ‘‘Travelers’notion of ‘complete and total peace’ is a subjectiveconcept that no tribunal can ever guarantee.’’140 Thecourt ordered Travelers to pay the direct action plain-tiffs with interest.141 Travelers and one other partyappealed that order. The appeals were heard by thedistrict court on January 9, 2012, and are awaitingdecision.

Pittsburgh Corning. On June 16, 2011, the bank-ruptcy court denied confirmation of Pittsburgh Cor-ning’s modified third amended plan of reorganization.First, the court found that the plan could not beconsidered ‘‘insurance neutral’’ because the plan’s neu-trality language was ‘‘incomprehensible, and its scopeis blurred by being made subject to a host of otherPlan Documents which, in reality, openly gut thepurported protections.’’142 In part, the comprehensi-bility problem arose from the fact that two differentprovisions of the plan each purported to be preemp-tory of the other.143 Additionally, the court held that‘‘the purported insurance neutrality language goes farbeyond the Combustion Engineering language as thelanguage here contains many qualifications and pro-visos,’’ thus creating confusion about ‘‘what the sec-tions actually mean and which controls.’’144 Second,the court found that the plan improperly sought tochannel to the proposed § 524(g) trust asbestos claimsthat were not derivative of the debtor’s asbestos liabil-ities (i.e., ‘‘not alleged to be as a result of conduct of,claims against, or demands on PCC or based on non-debtors’ participation in and control of PCC’’).145

The court held that it was not clear which partiesand claims the proposed § 524(g) injunction wouldapply to, and that plan proponents bore the burden ofarticulating the scope of the injunction as a requisiteof confirmation.146

The court’s opinion permitted Pittsburgh Corning tofile another plan. Accordingly, on September 23,2011, Pittsburgh Corning filed a modified plan, seek-ing to address the issues identified by the court.147

After objections and briefs against and in favor ofconfirmation were filed,148 Pittsburgh Corning filedseveral sets of plan amendments during late 2011 andearly 2012.149 The principal issues being addressedby the parties now concerns whether the plan, asamended, is ‘‘insurance neutral’’ and whether planlanguage regarding judgment reduction sufficientlycompensates non-settled insurers for the loss ofcontribution rights.150 The parties and the court dis-cussed these issues during a hearing held on Febru-ary 17, 2012, but no decision was entered and afurther hearing on the issues will take place in thefuture.

Quigley. After a 15-day confirmation hearing, thebankruptcy court denied confirmation of Quigley’splan.151 The court found that the plan did not satisfy

9


the ‘‘good faith’’ requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3)because Quigley’s parent company, Pfizer, ‘‘wrongfullymanipulated the voting process to assure confirmationof the Quigley plan, and thereby gain the benefit of thechanneling injunction for itself and the other PfizerProtected Parties. . . . In a nutshell, Pfizer boughtenough votes to assure that any plan would beaccepted.’’152 After excluding the tainted votes fromconsideration, the court concluded that the plan lackedsufficient votes and thus could not be confirmed.153

The court also found that the plan failed to satisfy the‘‘fair and equitable’’ requirement for entry of a channel-ing injunction under § 524(g), because Pfizer’s contri-bution to the proposed trust was ‘‘substantially less thanthe benefit that Pfizer will realize from the channelinginjunction,’’154 and that the plan was not feasible asrequired by § 1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Codebecause Quigley’s future prospects to attract businessbeyond a 5-year period during which Pfizer would payQuigley to process asbestos claims were ‘‘speculative atbest and visionary at worst.’’155

After the court denied confirmation, an ad hoc com-mittee of asbestos claimants and the U.S. Trustee,both of which had opposed plan confirmation,moved to dismiss the bankruptcy case on the groundsthat Quigley would not be able to confirm a plan.156

Pfizer and Quigley opposed the motions. The hearingon the motions has been continued several times asthe parties attempt to reach a resolution. Pfizer, Quig-ley, and most of the members of the ad hoc committeereached agreement on the terms of an amended plan,and on April 7, 2011, the bankruptcy court approveda ‘‘plan support agreement’’ among the parties.157

Quigley filed an amended plan and disclosure state-ment on April 6, 2011.158 However, the disclosurestatement hearing and a continued hearing on themotions to dismiss the bankruptcy case have beenadjourned several times, without date.159

The parties have been involved in an appeal to theSecond Circuit from a district court order entered onMay 17, 2011, reversing a bankruptcy court orderenjoining an asbestos claimants’ law firm from litigat-ing tort claims under Pennsylvania law against Pfizer,based on the use of Pfizer’s name on bags of Quigleyasbestos products.160 The district court granted Pfizer’smotion to stay the order pending appeal, to which theappellee consented, because allowing the litigation toproceed would give the law firm’s claimants an unfair

priority to access assets of the estate, and could depletePfizer’s and Quigley’s shared insurance.161 The SecondCircuit heard oral argument on September 28, 2011,but has not ruled.

Skinner Engine. On May 26, 2009, in the context ofreviewing a disclosure statement relating to a proposedmodified plan – debtor’s fifth plan – the bankruptcycourt held that the plan was facially unconfirmable.Because the plan proponents had not been able toeffectuate a confirmable plan within a reasonabletime,162 the court converted Skinner’s case fromChapter 11 to Chapter 7.163 The bankruptcy courtfound that Skinner’s plan constituted a settlementbetween the plan proponents and asbestos claimantsto which the debtors’ insurers had not consented,which, under Pennsylvania law, voided any availablecoverage, no matter how reasonable the settlement.164

The court further found that even if the law allowedsuch a settlement, the proposed settlement was notreasonable and in good faith because the asbestosclaims were so tenuous that it made no sense for thedebtor to settle them.165 Finally, the court found thatthe proposed asbestos settlement was the product of‘‘patent collusion’’ between the plan proponents andasbestos claimants that would improperly give debtora financial incentive to sabotage the insurers’ defenseof those claims.166

Skinner appealed the bankruptcy court’s order to thedistrict court, which affirmed.167 On May 12, 2010,Skinner appealed the lower courts’ orders to the ThirdCircuit. The Third Circuit heard oral arguments onthe appeals on October 25, 2011, but has not ruled.

Thorpe Insulation. On February 1, 2010, the bank-ruptcy court confirmed Thorpe’s § 524(g) plan.168

On September 21, 2010, the district court affirmedthe confirmation order and held that the objectinginsurers only had standing to contest the ‘‘insuranceneutrality’’ of the plan.169

Two of Thorpe’s non-settling insurers appealed theconfirmation order to the Ninth Circuit. Thorpe andthe other plan proponents moved to dismiss theappeals on the grounds that they were equitablymoot, because the plan has been substantially con-summated.170 On January 24, 2012, the Ninth Cir-cuit reversed the district court’s conclusion that theinsurers lacked standing, and remanded the case so

10


that the insurers would have a full and fair opportu-nity to present evidence to the bankruptcy court insupport of their confirmation objections.171 As a mat-ter of first impression within the Ninth Circuit, thecourt set out a test to determine equitable mootness,and held that the appeal was not moot, even thoughappellants had been denied a stay, the plan hadbecome effective, and distributions under the planhad commenced, because it was possible to fashionrelief ‘‘in a way that does not affect third party intereststo such an extent that the change is inequitable.’’172

The court also held that § 541(c) of the BankruptcyCode expressly preempts anti-assignment provisionsin the insurers’ policies, and therefore the assignmentof Thorpe’s insurance policies to a § 524(g) trustwould not breach those provisions. The plan propo-nents moved for rehearing en banc on February 7,2012,173 and on February, 2012 the Ninth Circuitordered the insurers to file a response to the motion byMarch 7, 2012.174

In a separate decision, the Ninth Circuit on January 30,2012 affirmed lower court rulings disallowing a proof ofclaim filed by one of Thorpe’s insurers.175 The proof ofclaim sought recovery of damages from Thorpe forbreaching a pre-petition settlement agreement by,among other things, violating covenants that it wouldnot assist asbestos claimants in asserting direct claimsagainst the insurer. The court said that a debtor ‘‘couldnot contract away its right to avail itself of the protec-tions of § 524(g).’’176

Certain of Thorpe’s non-settling insurers also appealedorders approving Thorpe’s settlements with two of itsother insurers, claiming that the settlements improperlyextinguish the objecting insurers’ contribution andother rights against the settling insurers, and an ordergranting a substantial contribution claim by the KazanMcClain and Brayton Purcell law firms for settlementsachieved with Thorpe’s insurers.177 The appeals men-tioned in this paragraph have been dismissed as equi-tably moot.178

THAN. On May 21, 2009, the bankruptcy court helda combined hearing on debtor’s motions to approvethe disclosure statement and confirm its prepackagedplan of reorganization. Because the plan included sub-stantial protections for insurers that were heavilynegotiated among the plan proponents and insurancecompanies, the only party that objected to plan

confirmation was a single law firm representing asbestospersonal injury claimants.179 On May 28, 2009, thebankruptcy court confirmed the plan.180 The objectinglaw firm appealed that order and opposed debtor’smotion seeking affirmation of the confirmation orderfrom the district court.181 Ultimately, debtor and theobjecting law firm resolved their dispute through anagreed plan modification.182 On October 26, 2009,the district court affirmed confirmation of the modifiedplan.183

W.R. Grace. On January 31, 2011, the bankruptcycourt confirmed W.R. Grace’s § 524(g) plan.184 Severalparties appealed the confirmation order to the districtcourt, including certain of Grace’s bank lenders, theofficial committee of non-asbestos creditors, one ofGrace’s alleged co-defendants in the tort system,the ‘‘Libby Claimants,’’ the State of Montana, and par-ties asserting contractual indemnification claims. OnJanuary 31, 2012, the district court issued a 202-pagememorandum opinion affirming the bankruptcycourt’s confirmation ruling in all respects.185 Thecourt held, among other things, that the plan hadbeen proposed in good faith, that all the requirementsof § 524(g) had been satisfied, that the plan’s classifica-tion of claims was proper, that the plan met the ‘‘feasi-bility’’ requirements because the reorganized debtorwould not need further reorganization following con-firmation, that the plan met the ‘‘best interests of cred-itors’’ test with respect to those creditors who had votedagainst the plan, and that the Bankruptcy Code pre-empted application of the ‘‘anti-assignment’’ provisionsin certain insurers’ policies.

3. Overview Of Recent Asbestos BankruptcyDevelopments

Insurance Neutrality/Insurer Standing. Since Com-bustion Engineering was filed in 2003, a recurring issuein asbestos bankruptcies has been whether insurershave standing to participate in § 524(g) cases andobject to plans. Two recent circuit court cases heldthat insurers do, in fact, have such standing.

First, an en banc Third Circuit held in GIT thatinsurers had standing where the plan in questionthreatened to increase the liabilities that the insurersmight be called upon to defend or indemnify. Such anargument can be made in most § 524(g) cases wheredebtors, ACCs, and FCRs agree to a plan withoutinput from their insurers, given that trust distribution

11


procedures are often drafted to efficiently pay claimswith a level of scrutiny that insurers would character-ize as less than searching.

Second, the Ninth Circuit held in Thorpe Insulationthat a bankruptcy court erred in not allowing insurersto present argument and evidence at a hearing toconfirm a plan that the plan’s proponents had char-acterized as ‘‘insurance neutral.’’ The circuit court,however, concluded that the plan was not ‘‘insuranceneutral’’ because it ‘‘may have a substantial economicimpact on insurers.’’ 186 The court explained:‘‘Though the plan recites that it is insurance neutral,this characterization in and of itself does not settle theissue. Instead, we must look to the real-world impactsof the plan to see if it increases insurance exposure andlikely liabilities of Appellants.’’187 The court thenpointed out various ways in which the plan potentiallyaffected the objecting insurers, requiring that they bepermitted to participate in the confirmation process.

Both the GIT court and the Thorpe court vacated theconfirmation orders in question and remanded thecases back to bankruptcy court for further confirma-tion proceedings during which the insurers would beallowed to participate.188 In both cases, then, the planproponents’ effort to save time and cost by excludinginsurers from the confirmation hearing on the basisthat the plans were purportedly ‘‘insurance neutral’’proved unsuccessful.

A slightly different approach was followed in LeslieControls. There, the debtor persuaded the bankruptcycourt, over the insurers’ objections, that the plan was‘‘insurance neutral,’’ and so the insurers were excludedfrom the confirmation hearing. After the insurers’appeal had been fully briefed in the district court,but before oral argument of the appeal, the plan pro-ponents and the insurers reached agreement on‘‘insurance neutrality’’ provisions. The district courtremanded the case to the bankruptcy court for approvalof the ‘‘insurance neutrality’’ provisions; the plan was re-confirmed in short order by the bankruptcy court with-out objection, and the new confirmation order was thenquickly affirmed by the district court, again withoutobjection.189

By reaching agreement with its insurers on the termsof ‘‘insurance neutrality’’ before the appellate processhad reached the decision stage in the district court, the

debtor in Leslie Controls was able to avoid at least someof the delay, cost, and uncertainty experienced by theGIT and Thorpe debtors. Another way to avoid suchissues is to do as the debtor did in Plant Insulation –that is, not challenge the insurers’ right to participatefully in the confirmation process, thereby eliminatingall risk that plan confirmation might later be upendedbased on an erroneous ruling restricting insurers’standing. Similarly, in Pittsburgh Corning, the object-ing insurers were permitted to introduce evidenceduring the confirmation hearing in support of theirobjections even as plan proponents sought a rulingthat the insurers lacked standing because the planwas purportedly ‘‘insurance neutral.’’190

Because of rulings like GIT and Thorpe, plan propo-nents may no longer be willing to take the risk that aconfirmation order will be reversed because a planreally was not ‘‘insurance neutral.’’ But even if theywere, insurers may no longer be willing to rely on evensupposedly robust ‘‘insurance neutrality’’ language inthe wake of a federal district court decision construingthe Artra plan. In Artra 524(g) Asbestos Trust v. Fair-mont Premier Ins. Co., the court held that notwith-standing the plan’s ‘‘insurance neutrality’’ language –which specifically referenced the Seventh Circuit’s1991 decision in UNR Industries – the insurers wereobligated under the UNR ruling to indemnify the fullamount of claims as determined by the § 524(g) trustunder trust distribution procedures, even though thetrust was only paying 7.5% of such amounts.191 The‘‘insurance neutrality’’ language quoted in the decisionis common to many other § 524(g) plans, and wasthought by insurers to protect against exactly theresult reached by the Artra court. Given a choicebetween finding out years later that agreed languagewould not be given the intended effect, and partici-pating in confirmation proceedings as permittedunder the GIT and Thorpe standing rulings, it is likelythat many insurers will opt to try to protect theirinterests in the bankruptcy case itself.192

Can Defunct Companies Use § 524(g)? Certainasbestos defendants who are presently seeking to con-firm § 524(g) plans – e.g., Quigley, Flintkote, andPlant – have not had active business operations foryears. In these cases, objecting parties have argued thatthe debtors are not entitled to injunctive relief pur-suant to § 524(g) because those debtors ceased opera-tions before commencing their Chapter 11 cases.

12


Some debtors have argued that there is no ‘‘going con-cern’’ requirement in the statute. And the court inQuigley construed § 524(g) ‘‘narrowly’’ and concludedthat while there is, indeed, a funding requirement, thereis no additional ‘‘going concern’’ requirement.193 But asthe legislative history of § 524(g) establishes, the statutewas enacted to ‘‘preserve the going concern value ofthose companies [facing asbestos liabilities], thus pro-viding a source of payment for . . . future [asbestos]claims.’’194 The congressional sponsor of § 524(g)explained that ‘‘the reorganized company becomes thegoose that lays the golden egg by remaining a viableoperation and maximizing the trust’s assets to payclaims.’’195 An added salutary effect of the ‘‘fresh start’’provided to the reorganized debtor under § 524(g) wasthe preservation of jobs that would otherwise be lost ifthe debtor’s asbestos liabilities forced it to liquidate.Thus, the enactment of § 524(g) was also hailed asproviding ‘‘added stability and job security for the thou-sands of workers employed by reorganized compa-nies.’’196 None of these goals are met by allowingnon-operational debtors to use § 524(g) – such com-panies have no going concern value to preserve and nojobs to save.

Moreover, contrary to Quigley, other courts have recog-nized a ‘‘going concern’’ requirement within § 524(g).For example, the Third Circuit in Combustion Engineer-ing noted that § 524(g) requires a debtor to be ‘‘a goingconcern, such that it is able to make future paymentsinto the trust to provide an ‘evergreen’ funding sourcefor future asbestos claims.’’197 Similarly, the court inWestern Asbestos found that a debtor that was not anoperating company was ‘‘not entitled to’’ § 524(g)protection.198

Debtors facing ‘‘going concern’’ objections have reliedon several different strategies in attempt to complywith that requirement.

In Thorpe Insulation, for example, the non-operatingdebtor facing asbestos liabilities merged with PacificInsulation, a commonly-owned operating co-debtorthat was the alleged successor-in-interest for Thorpe’sasbestos liabilities. The § 524(g) plan embodying thattransaction was confirmed by the bankruptcy courtand that order was affirmed by the district court,though the confirmation order was recently reversedon other grounds by the Ninth Circuit.199

The non-operating debtor in Plant Insulation has simi-larly proposed to merge with an operating company,Bayside, which was been named as the alleged succes-sor-in-interest to Plant’s asbestos liabilities in a verysmall number of pre-petition lawsuits. However, unlikePacific Insulation, which merged into Thorpe, Baysideis not a co-debtor with Plant and was never undercommon ownership. Under the proposed plan, Plantwould emerge from the bankruptcy case using Bayside’sname, undertaking Bayside’s operations with Bayside’semployees. Whether that transaction complies with§ 524(g) is currently one of the issues under submissionin the plan confirmation proceedings in that case.

The non-operating debtor in Flintkote took a differentapproach, attempting to develop new business opera-tions during its bankruptcy case. Specifically, Flint-kote purchased several fast-food restaurants in a seriesof sale-leaseback transactions, and proposes to begin aclaims processing business after confirmation. Flint-kote’s former parent company, Imperial Tobacco,objected to confirmation arguing, inter alia, thatFlintkote’s new businesses do not satisfy the goingconcern requirement because § 524(g) is intended toprotect businesses that were already operating as of thepetition date, and Flintkote’s proposed business willnot generate sufficient income for the benefit of asbes-tos claimants. The parties recently completed post-confirmation hearing briefing, with closing argumentscheduled in March, 2012.

The debtor in Quigley likewise plans to engage in a newclaims processing business post-confirmation, andentered into a contract with its parent company, Pfizer,to process asbestos claims against Pfizer and certainPfizer affiliates for a specified period of time.200

Although the bankruptcy court construed § 524(g)‘‘narrowly’’ as not imposing a separate ‘‘going concern’’requirement, based on its view that imposing an‘‘ongoing business requirement could transform thefunding requirement into a feasibility test, duplicatingthe requirement imposed under’’ § 1129(a)(11) of theBankruptcy Code,201 the court ultimately concludedthat Quigley’s plan was not feasible because ‘‘once thePfizer Claims Services Agreement expires, Quigley willnot have sufficient business to continue operating.’’202

Discovery From Bankruptcy Trusts. Given the sig-nificant number of asbestos defendants who haveobtained bankruptcy relief through § 524(g), a

13


substantial amount of money has become availablefrom confirmed asbestos personal injury trusts forthe payment of claims – estimated to be between$25 and $40 billion, with potentially up to $1 millionavailable for a mesothelioma plaintiff.203 The signifi-cant amounts available to these trusts has enabledsignificant payments to individual claimants.204 Butthis influx in trust funding and payments beingreceived by asbestos claimants has created issues forcompanies who remain defendants in the tort system,concerning the discoverability of information beingsubmitted to the trusts by asbestos claimants andthe amounts being received by the claimants from aparticular trust.

Non-debtor defendants seek that information to avoidabsorbing the liabilities of debtors, i.e., by payingmore than their proportionate share of liability, andto ensure that they obtain appropriate credits in litiga-tion.205 Thus, they have argued that they are entitledto obtain claims materials submitted to trusts in orderto reduce liability that had otherwise been enlarged topick up a debtor-defendant’s ‘‘share.’’ Many courtshave agreed that claims-related information, especiallyregarding facts such as work history and product expo-sure, is relevant and discoverable.206 Some courts haveentered case management orders that require plaintiffsto disclose information submitted to bankruptcytrusts, and may also require disclosure of the amountof payments received from asbestos trusts for the pur-pose of reducing a judgment entered against thedefendant.207 In order to prevent asbestos claimantsfrom delaying the submission of trust claims untilafter solvent defendants have been pursued in thetort system, thereby avoiding having their tort judg-ments reduced, some courts have required claimants’counsel to file or produce any bankruptcy claims thatwere being contemplated, so that non-debtor defen-dants could set off from any damages award theamounts received or to be received by the plaintiffsfrom any bankruptcy trusts.208

This issue has come to a head more recently in theGarlock and Bondex bankruptcy cases. Both Garlockand Bondex, as part of establishing their ‘‘true’’ liabi-lity for asbestos claims via the bankruptcy claims esti-mation process, have expended significant effort andresources attempting to obtain discovery regarding theclaims filed against established bankruptcy trusts aspart of proving that their liabilities would have been

reduced if they had received credit for payments thatclaimants obtained from those trusts.

In connection with the claims estimation process,Garlock filed several motions in its bankruptcy casepursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 seeking discoveryfrom § 524(g) trusts and facilities that process claimsagainst various asbestos trusts.209 The bankruptcycourt denied Garlock’s Rule 2004 motion, findingthat such a motion was procedurally improper becausethose entities are not parties to Garlock’s bankruptcycase, and that the ‘‘timing . . . and breadth of theirscope are indicative of an erosion of civility and com-mon courtesy.’’210

Garlock also filed motions in 12 bankruptcy casescurrently or formerly pending before BankruptcyJudge Judith Fitzgerald in Delaware and Pennsylva-nia, seeking access to Bankruptcy Rule 2019 state-ments filed in those cases by counsel for asbestosclaimants.211 Garlock argued that it required thatdata to determine whether it previously settled claimsfor inflated values because claimants who assertedclaims against other asbestos debtors may not haveprovided evidence about exposure to those debtors’products in litigation against Garlock.212 Garlockfurther argued that it was entitled to access the Rule2019 statements filed in those other cases as part of itsinvestigation of potential claims against plaintiffs’firms that allegedly concealed evidence of their client’strust claims during discovery in the tort system inorder to inflate settlement payments from Garlock.213

Judge Fitzgerald denied those motions, finding thatGarlock lacked standing to intervene in those cases.214

Garlock has appealed, and briefing of the appeals hasbeen completed.

The Bondex debtors similarly sought extensive claims-related discovery from many 524(g) trusts and claimsprocessing facilities that administer claims for thosetrusts,215 arguing that such information is necessaryfor their expert to determine debtors’ likely asbestosliability.216 The trusts, the ACC, and the FCRobjected to those discovery requests,217 and theirobjections were eventually upheld.218

Several trusts have affirmatively sought relief thatwould preclude third-party discovery against them.On October 28, 2010, the ACandS trust, alongwith the § 524(g) trusts established in the Kaiser

14


Aluminum, US Gypsum, and Owens Corning/Fibreboard bankruptcy cases and the ACCs andFCRs in those cases, commenced adversary actionsseeking declaratory and injunctive relief against severalinsurers involved in coverage litigation with certaintrusts and debtors in other bankruptcy cases thatwere seeking discovery from the trusts.219 The com-plaints sought to enjoin such discovery based on sub-stantially similar provisions in the trust distributionprocedures that protect the confidentiality of clai-mants’ submissions of information to the trusts.220

Bondex and Garlock moved to dismiss the trusts’complaints on the grounds, inter alia, that the disputeimproperly intruded on the normal discovery processin other cases, that the Delaware bankruptcy courtlacked jurisdiction to resolve objections to discoveryin a different bankruptcy case, and that under boththe first-filed rule and principles of judicial economy,the Delaware court should defer to the courts presid-ing over the Bondex and Garlock bankruptcy cases.221

Defendant insurers moved to dismiss on the groundsthat the complaint improperly sought to bar discoveryin state court litigation.222

On February 22, 2011, the bankruptcy court dismissedthe complaints, finding that the court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, that thecourt should allow the other federal and state courtsthat were overseeing the cases in which the discoveryrequests originated to make decisions about the propri-ety of those requests.223

Protection From Future Claims Without § 524(g).Several recent rulings have provided companies thatexited bankruptcy before being sued for asbestos liabil-ities with protection equivalent to § 524(g) protection.

The cases arise in a similar context, and the courtrulings are similar. A company enters bankruptcywithout having received asbestos claims. During itsbankruptcy case, the debtor gives notice by publica-tion of the bar date for filing claims. Its plan is laterconfirmed. The plan says nothing about cutting offasbestos claims, because the company had notreceived any. Years later, the reorganized company issued by asbestos claimants, and responds by assertingthat the claims were discharged by the company’sbankruptcy and subject to the discharge injunctionentered upon plan confirmation.

On these facts, the Third Circuit in Grossman’s foundthat the claimant’s ‘‘claim’’ accrued for bankruptcypurposes when she was exposed, pre-petition, to theasbestos contained in the product sold by Grossman’s.Further, the court held that the claim was dischargedbecause the publication notice of the bar date wassufficient, given that the claimant had not notifiedGrossman’s that she was asserting any claim.224 ANew York bankruptcy court and a Texas bankruptcycourt reached similar results on similar facts.225 And aCalifornia state appellate court recently adopted ananalysis similar to that followed in Grossman’s, butheld that it was not able to determine at the demurrerstage whether the claimants had received notice thatwas adequate to discharge their claims against theformer debtor.226

These cases do not provide a strategy that could befollowed by debtors that have received asbestos claimsprior to plan confirmation. But they do suggest thatany reorganized company that is brought into asbestoslitigation for the first time post-confirmation hasstrong arguments that it need not even defend suchcases.

Grossman’s may have an impact in pending cases. InFlintkote, a party objecting to plan confirmation hasargued that Flintkote’s plan cannot be confirmedbecause Flintkote did not provide notice to, or solicitvotes from, persons who have ‘‘claims’’ under Gross-man’s because they were exposed to Flintkote asbestospre-petition, even though they are presently asympto-matic. The bankruptcy court can be expected toaddress this argument when it issues its ruling onthe objection after the March, 2012 closing argu-ments in that case.

Insurance Contribution Issues. Several of the asbes-tos bankruptcies pending in California have presentedunique issues regarding the impact of the § 524(g)injunction on the rights of non-settled insurers toobtain contribution from other insurers who havesettled with the debtor. Under California law, aninsurer’s settlement with a policyholder does not cutoff contribution claims by non-settled insurers. Theissue arose in the Thorpe and Plant cases because theplans in those cases contain provisions allowing clai-mants, in addition to obtaining recoveries from the§ 524(g) trusts, to pursue post-confirmation tort sys-tem claims against the reorganized debtor, solely for

15


the purpose of obtaining a judgment that could sup-port a later direct action claim against the non-settledinsurers. Because the non-settled insurers would becalled upon to defend and then indemnify the tortsystem claims against the reorganized debtor, theywould have a claim against the settled insurers underCalifornia law that would be cut off by the § 524(g)injunction.227

In Thorpe, the issue was initially raised during theconfirmation hearing in January, 2009. The bank-ruptcy judge said she would not confirm the planunless the non-settled insurers’ contribution rightsreceived appropriate protection. Eventually, the par-ties agreed to a judgment reduction provision whichrequired that any judgment against a non-settledinsurer be reduced by the amount of its right to con-tribution from the settled insurers (as determined bythe court), coupled with a provision granting non-settled insurers the right to sue the § 524(g) trust,and recover in 100-cent dollars, for any contributionrights that were not fully compensated by the judg-ment reduction provision.

In Plant, the non-settled insurers sought similar pro-tection. They filed two summary judgment motionsduring the bankruptcy case arguing that the plancould not be confirmed as a matter of law because itextinguished their contribution rights without com-pensation.228 After both motions, the plan propo-nents amended the plan. The second amendmentadded the judgment reduction provision containedin the Thorpe plan, but did not include the provisionallowing the insurers to sue the trust (the so-called‘‘trust backstop’’ provision). Following the secondamendment, the court ruled that whether the plancould be confirmed in light of its failure to includea trust backstop provision would have to be the sub-ject of evidence at trial.229

During the Plant confirmation hearing, there wasextensive fact and expert testimony on the issue.The plan proponents argued that it was fair to enjointhe insurers’ contribution claims without including atrust backstop provision because the plan benefittedthe insurers on a net basis, since the judgment reductionprovisions (which did not apply to settled or dismissedcases) would result in fewer post-confirmation tortsuits and reduced settlement values. The insurersresponded that there was no reliable, credible evidence

that there would be fewer claims or reduced settle-ment values, and that their contribution claims infact would be both grossly and systematically under-compensated. The issue is under submission to thebankruptcy court along with all the other objectionsto confirmation.

Similar issues regarding judgment reduction provi-sions affecting the rights of non-settled insurers arein the process of being presented to the court in Pitts-burgh Corning, as discussed above.

Anti-Assignment. In our last article, we noted that ‘‘[i]thas become increasingly common for asbestos debtorsto seek rulings from the bankruptcy court, as part ofplan confirmation, that state law and/or contractualprohibitions against a debtor’s proposed assignment ofits insurance policies are preempted by the BankruptcyCode where the plan in question seeks to assign suchinsurance assets to a § 524(g) trust,’’ and that ‘‘[t]o date,courts considering this issue have generally ruled thatthe Bankruptcy Code does, in fact, preempt enforce-ment of anti-assignment provisions that otherwisemight preclude assignment of a debtor’s insurance assetsto a § 524(g) trust absent the insurers’ consent.230 Wefurther noted that ‘‘[n]o circuit court has explicitlyaddressed this issue, but given that most debtors relyon an assignment of insurance assets to fund their pro-posed § 524(g) trusts, over insurer objections, we expectthat the issue will soon reach, and be decided by, afederal circuit court.’’

The issue was addressed by the Ninth Circuit in ThorpeInsulation on January 24, 2012, and the court held thatthe Bankruptcy Code expressly preempted enforcementof anti-assignment provisions in the debtor’s insurancepolicies. The court’s opinion relied on § 541 of theBankruptcy Code, and arguably addressed the wrongissue: whether the policies could be assigned as a matterof law to the debtor-in-possession, rather than whetherthe debtor-in-possession could assign the policies to a§ 524(g) trust. However, the court also said that theanti-assignment provisions were impliedly preemptedby § 524(g), since ‘‘Section 524(g) was specificallydesigned to allow companies with large asbestos-relatedliabilities to use Chapter 11 to transfer those liabilities,along with substantial assets, to a trust responsible forpaying future asbestos claims.’’231

16


The issue remains sub judice before the Third Circuitin the Federal-Mogul appeal. On January 30, 2012,however, the district court in W.R. Grace, consideringwhat it said were ‘‘the same briefs’’ as those filed in theThird Circuit, and citing the Ninth Circuit’s rulingsix days earlier in Thorpe, held that ‘‘§ 1123(a)(5)(B)of the Bankruptcy Code expressly preempts the anti-assignment provisions in the objecting insurers’ poli-cies.’’232 Obviously, the Third Circuit will speak foritself on the issue when it considers those ‘‘samebriefs’’ in Federal-Mogul.

4. ConclusionNotwithstanding the many decisions issued duringthe past few years in asbestos bankruptcy cases,there remains a large number of open or unansweredquestions, about substantive law and procedure, thatwill continue to be addressed in such cases in thefuture. We look forward to reporting on such futuredevelopments in Part 7 of this series of articles.

WHERE ARE THEY NOW, PART 6:

CHART 1

COMPANY NAME AND YEAR OF

BANKRUPTCY FILING

(CHRONOLOGICALLY)

Company Year

UNR Industries 1982Johns-Manville Corp. 1982Amatex Corp. 1982Unarco 1982Waterman Steamship Corp. 1983Wallace & Gale Co. 1984Forty-Eight Insulations 1985Philadelphia Asbestos Corp. (Pacor) 1986Standard Insulations, Inc. 1986Prudential Lines, Inc. 1986McLean Industries 1986United States Lines 1986Gatke Corp. 1987Todd Shipyards 1987Nicolet, Inc. 1987Raymark Corp./Raytech Corp. 1989Delaware Insulations 1989Hillsborough Holding Co. 1989Celotex Corp. 1990Carey Canada, Inc. 1990National Gypsum 1990

Eagle-Picher Industries 1991H.K. Porter Co. 1991Kentile Floors 1992

American Shipbuilding, Inc. 1993

Keene Corp. 1993

Lykes Bros. Steamship 1995

Rock Wool Manufacturing 1996M.H. Detrick 1998Fuller-Austin 1998Brunswick Fabricators 1998Harnischfeger Corp. 1999

Rutland Fire Clay 1999Babcock & Wilcox Co. 2000Pittsburgh Corning 2000Owens Corning Corp./Fibreboard 2000Armstrong World Industries 2000Burns & Roe, Inc. 2001G-I Holdings 2001Skinner Engine Co. 2001

W.R. Grace 2001USG Corp. 2001E.J. Bartells 2001United States Mineral Products 2001Federal Mogul 2001Murphy Marine Services 2001Chicago Fire Brick 2001Insul Co. 2001Swan Transportation Co. 2001North American Refractories Corp. (NARCO) 2002Kaiser Aluminum 2002

GIT/Harbison-Walker/AP Green Industries 2002Plibrico Co. 2002Shook & Fletcher 2002Porter-Hayden Co. 2002Artra Group, Inc. 2002Special Metals Corp. 2002

Asbestos Claims Management Corp. 2002ACandS 2002JT Thorpe Co. (S.D. Tex.) 2002A-Best Products 2002

Western MacArthur/Western Asbestos 2002C.E. Thurston 2003Combustion Engineering 2003Congoleum Corp. 2003Mid-Valley (Halliburton subsidiaries) 2003Muralo Co. 2003Flintkote Co./Flintkote Mines 2004Oglebay Norton Co. (ONCO) 2004

17


Special Electric 2004Quigley Co. 2004Utex Industries 2004JT Thorpe, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) 2004API, Inc. 2005Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd. 2005Asarco1 2005Brauer Supply Co. 2005Dana Corporation 2006ABB Lummus Global 2006Lloyd E. Mitchell Co. 2006Thorpe Insulation Co. 2007Pacific Insulation Co.2 2007Hercules Chemical Co. 2008Christy Refractories Co. LLC 2008T H Agriculture & Nutrition, LLC 2008Plant Insulation Co. 2009General Motors Corp.3 2009Durabla Manufacturing Co.4 2009Bondex International, Inc. and SpecialtyProducts Holding Corp.

2010

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, TheAnchor Packing Company and GarrisonLitigation Management Group Ltd.

2010

Leslie Controls, Inc. 2010Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. 2010Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corp. 2010State Insulation Corp. 2011United Gilsonite Laboratories 2011C.P. Hall Company

WHERE ARE THEY NOW, PART 6:

CHART 2

COMPANY NAME AND YEAR OF

BANKRUPTCY FILING (ALPHABETIZED)

Company Year

ABB Lummus Global 2006A-Best Products 2002ACandS, Inc. 2002Amatex Corp. 1982American Shipbuilding Co. 1993Anchor Packing CompanyAncor Holdings Inc./National Gypsum 1990

API, Inc. 2005Armstrong World Industries 2000Artra Group, Inc. 2002Asarco, Inc. 20055

Asbestos Claims Management Corp. 2002Babcock & Wilcox Co. 2000Bondex International, Inc. and Specialty

Products Holding Corp.

2010

Brauer Supply Co. 2005Brunswick Fabricators 1998Burns & Roe 2001Carey Canada, Inc. 1990Celotex Corp. 1990C.E. Thurston 2003Chicago Fire Brick 2001Christy Refractories Co. LLC 2008Combustion Engineering 2003Congoleum Corp. 2003

C.P. Hall 2011Dana Corporation 2006Delaware Insulations Distributors 1989

Durabla Manufacturing Co.6 2009

Eagle Pitcher Industries 1991

EJ Bartells Co., Inc. 2001

Chart 1 (Continued)

Company Year

1 Three subsidiaries of Asarco – AR Sacaton LLC; Southern Peru Hold-ings, LLC; and Asarco Exploration Company – filed for Chapter 11 onDecember 12, 2006, citing asbestos exposure.

2 Pacific Insulation Co. is related to Thorpe Insulation Co., which filedtwo weeks earlier in the same court.

3 In pleadings in its bankruptcy case, Motors Liquidation Co. (f/ka/General Motors) has said its case is not an asbestos bankruptcy and it hasdisavowed any intention to confirm a plan under 11 U.S.C. § 524(g).However, the U.S. Trustee has appointed a committee of asbestos clai-mants, and the debtors have moved for appointment of a future claimsrepresentative.

4 An affiliate of Durabla – Durabla Canada Ltd. – filed for Chapter 11on November 8, 2010, citing asbestos exposure.

5 Three subsidiaries of Asarco – AR Sacaton LLC; Southern Peru Hold-ings, LLC; and Asarco Exploration Company – filed for Chapter 11 onDecember 12, 2006, citing asbestos exposure.

6 An affiliate of Durabla – Durabla Canada Ltd. – filed for Chapter 11on November 8, 2010, citing asbestos exposure.

18


Federal Mogul Corp. 2001

Flintkote Co. 2004

Flintkote Mines Ltd. 2004

Forty-Eight Insulations 1985

Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. 1998

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC7 2010

Gatke Corp. 1987

General Motors Corp.8 2009

G-I Holdings 2001

GIT/Harbison-Walker/AP Green 2002

Harnischfeger Corp. 1999

Hercules Chemical Co. 2008

Hillsborough Holdings 1989

H.K. Porter Co., Inc. 1991

Insul Co. 2001

Johns-Manville Corp. 1982

JT Thorpe (S.D. Tex.) 2002

JT Thorpe (C.D. Cal.) 2004

Kaiser Aluminum Corp. 2002

Keene Corp. 1993

Kentile Floors, Inc. 1992

Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd. 2005

Leslie Controls, Inc. 2010

Lloyd E. Mitchell Co. 2006

McLean Industries 1986

M.H. Detrick 1998

Mid-Valley (Halliburton subsidiaries) 2003

The Muralo Co., Inc. 2003

Murphy Marine Services, Inc. 2001

North American Refractories Co. (NARCO) 2002

Nicolet, Inc. 1987

Oglebay Norton (ONCO) 2004

Owens Corning/Fibreboard 2000

Pacific Insulation Co.9 2007

Philadelphia Asbestos Corp. (Pacor) 1986

Pittsburgh Corning 2000

Plant Insulation Co. 2009

Plibrico Co. 2002

Porter-Hayden Co. 2002

Prudential Lines, Inc. 1986

Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corp. 2010

Quigley Co. 2004

Raymark Corp./Raytech Corp. 1989

Rock Wool Manufacturing 1996

Rutland Fire Clay Co. 1999

Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co. 2002

Skinner Engine Co. 2001

Special Electric Co. 2004

Special Metals Corp. 2002

Standard Insulations, Inc. 1986

State Insulation Corp. 2011

Swan Transportation Co. 2001

T H Agriculture & Nutrition, LLC 2008

Thorpe Insulation Co. 2007

Todd Shipyards 1987

Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. 2010

Unarco Industries, Inc. 1982

United Gilsonite Laboratories 2011

United States Lines 1986

United States Mineral Products 2001

UNR Industries, Inc. 1982

USG Corp. 2001

Utex Industries 2004

Wallace & Gale 1984

Waterman Steamship Corp. 1983

Western Macarthur 2002

W.R. Grace Co. 2001

Company Year

7 Garlock filed along with its affiliates The Anchor Packing Companyand Garrison Litigation Management Group Ltd.

8 In pleadings in its bankruptcy case, Motors Liquidation Co. (f/ka/General Motors) has said its case is not an asbestos bankruptcy and it hasdisavowed any intention to confirm a plan under 11 U.S.C. § 524(g).However, the U.S. Trustee has appointed a committee of asbestos clai-mants, and the debtors have moved for appointment of a future claimsrepresentative.

9 Pacific Insulation Co. is related to Thorpe Insulation Co., which filedtwo weeks earlier in the same court.

19


WH

ER

EA

RE

TH

EY

NO

W,P

AR

T6

:

CH

AR

T3

CO

MP

AN

YN

AM

E,C

AS

EN

O.,

CO

UR

T,P

LA

NS

TA

TU

S&

PU

BLIS

HE

DD

EC

ISIO

NS

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

AB

BL

umm

usG

loba

l,In

c.N

o.06

-104

01-

JKF

(Ban

kr.

D.D

el.)

Prep

acka

ged

plan

ofre

orga

niza

tion

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

June

29,

2006

and

byth

edi

s-tr

ict

cour

ton

July

21,2

006.

A-B

est

Prod

ucts

No.

02-1

2734

-JK

F(B

ankr

.D

.Del

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

May

25,

2004

and

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onJu

ne7,

2004

.

AC

andS

,Inc

.N

o.02

-126

87(B

ankr

.D

.Del

.)

Plan

deni

edco

nfirm

atio

nby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urto

nJa

nuar

y26

,20

04.

Deb

tor’s

revi

sed

seco

ndpl

anof

reor

gani

zatio

nap

prov

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onM

ay6,

2008

;dis

tric

tco

urt

affir

mat

ion

orde

ren

tere

don

June

27,2

008.

AC

andS

,Inc

.v.T

rave

lers

Cas

.&Su

r.C

o.,4

35F.

3d25

2(3

dC

ir.2

006)

;In

reA

Can

dS,I

nc.,

2011

WL

4801

527,

___

B.R

.___

(Ban

kr.D

.Del

.Oct

.7,

2011

)(a

lsoen

tere

din

the

Arm

stron

g,C

ombu

stion

Engi

neer

ing,

Flin

tkot

e,K

aise

rA

lum

inum

,O

wen

sC

orni

ng,

U.S

.M

iner

alPr

oduc

ts,U

SG,

W.R

.G

race

,Pitt

sbur

ghC

orni

ng,N

ARC

O,a

ndM

id-V

alle

yba

nkru

ptcy

case

s);I

nre

AC

andS

,Inc

.,31

1B

.R.3

6(B

ankr

.D.D

el.2

004)

;In

reA

Can

dS,I

nc.,

297

B.R

.36

(Ban

kr.

D.

Del

.20

03);

Inre

AC

andS

,In

c.,

297

B.R

.39

5(B

ankr

.D.D

el.2

003)

.

Am

atex

Cor

p.N

o.82

-052

20(B

ankr

.E

.D.P

a.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Apr

il25

,19

90.

Inre

Am

atex

Cor

p.,7

55F.

2d10

34(3

dC

ir.1

985)

;Am

atex

Cor

p.v.

Aet

naC

as.&

Sur.

Co.

(In

reA

mat

exC

orp.

),10

7B

.R.8

56(B

ankr

.E.D

.Pa.

1989

),af

f’d,9

08F.

2d96

1(3

dC

ir.1

990)

;Am

atex

Cor

p.v.

Aet

naC

as.&

Sur.

Co.

(In

reA

mat

exC

orp.

),97

B.R

.220

(Ban

kr.E

.D.P

a.),

aff’d

sub

nom

.Am

atex

Cor

p.v.

Ston

ewal

lIn

s.C

o.,

102

B.R

.41

1(E

.D.

Pa.

1989

);In

reA

mat

exC

orp.

,37

B.R

.613

(E.D

.Pa.

1983

).

Am

eric

anSh

ip-

build

ing

Co.

No.

93-1

1552

(Ban

kr.

M.D

.Fl

a.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Oct

ober

11,1

994.

A.P

.I.,

Inc.

No.

05-3

0073

(Ban

kr.

D.M

inn.

)

Thi

rdam

ende

dpl

anco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onD

ecem

ber

6,20

05;

confi

rmat

ion

orde

raf

firm

edby

the

dist

rictc

ourt

onM

ay25

,200

6;ap

peal

toth

eE

ight

hC

ircui

t(N

o.06

-242

1)di

smiss

ed.

Inre

A.P

.I.,

Inc.

,33

1B

.R.

828

(Ban

kr.

D.

Min

n.20

05),

aff’d

sub

nom

.O

neBe

acon

Am

eric

anIn

s.C

o.v.

A.P

.I.,

Inc.

,200

6W

L14

7300

4(D

.Min

n.M

ay25

,200

6);I

nre

A.P

.I.,

Inc.

,324

B.R

.761

(Ban

kr.D

.Min

n.20

05).

Arm

stro

ngW

orld

Indu

stri

es

No.

00-4

471

(Ban

kr.

D.D

el.)

Plan

reco

mm

ende

dfo

rco

nfirm

atio

nby

bank

rupt

cyco

urto

nD

ecem

ber1

9,20

03;c

onfir

mat

ion

deni

edby

dist

rict

cour

ton

Febr

uary

23,

2005

;di

stri

ctco

urt’s

orde

rde

nyin

gco

nfirm

atio

naf

firm

edby

the

Thi

rdC

ircu

iton

Dec

embe

r29

,200

5.

Inre

Arm

stron

gW

orld

Indu

s.,In

c.,4

32F.

3d50

7(3

dC

ir.2

005)

,aff’

gIn

reA

rmstr

ong

Wor

ldIn

dus.,

Inc.

,320

B.R

.523

(D.D

el.2

005)

;In

reK

ensin

g-to

nIn

t’lLt

d.,3

68F.

3d28

9(3

dC

ir.2

004)

(also

appl

icab

leto

the

Fede

ral-

Mog

ul,

Ow

ens

Cor

ning

,U

SGC

orp.

,an

dW

.R.

Gra

ceba

nkru

ptci

es);

Inre

Ken

singt

onIn

t’lLt

d.,3

53F.

3d21

1(3

dC

ir.2

003)

(also

appl

icab

leto

the

20


Am

ende

dpo

st-r

eman

dpl

anfil

edFe

brua

ry21

,200

6.D

istr

ict

cour

ten

tere

dan

opin

ion

and

orde

rco

nfirm

-in

gth

epl

anon

Aug

ust

15,2

006.

Fede

ral-M

ogul

,Ow

ensC

orni

ng,U

SGC

orp.

,and

W.R

.Gra

ceba

nkru

ptci

es);

Inre

Arm

stron

gW

orld

Indu

s.,In

c.,

348

B.R

.13

6(D

.D

el.

2006

);In

reA

rmstr

ong

Wor

ldIn

dus.,

Inc.

,348

B.R

.111

(D.D

el.2

006)

;In

reA

rmstr

ong

Wor

ldIn

dus.,

Inc.

,320

B.R

.523

(D.D

el.2

005)

;In

reA

Can

dS,I

nc.,

2011

WL

4801

527,

___

B.R

.___

(Ban

kr.D

.Del

.Oct

.7,2

011)

(also

ente

red

inth

eA

rmstr

ong,

Com

busti

onEn

gine

erin

g,Fl

intk

ote,

Kai

ser

Alu

min

um,O

wen

sC

orni

ng,

U.S

.M

iner

alPr

oduc

ts,U

SG,

W.R

.G

race

,Pi

ttsb

urgh

Cor

ning

,N

ARC

O,a

ndM

id-V

alle

yba

nkru

ptcy

case

s).S

eeal

soM

aert

inv.

Arm

stron

gW

orld

Indu

s.,In

c.,

241

F.Su

pp.2

d43

4(D

.N.J

.20

02);

Wise

v.T

rave

lers

Inde

m.C

o.,1

92F.

Supp

.2d

506

(N.D

.W.V

a.20

02).

Art

raG

roup

,In

c.N

o.02

-215

22(B

ankr

.N

.D.I

ll.)

Am

ende

dpl

anco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urto

nJa

nuar

y25

,20

07an

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Febr

uary

16,2

007.

Inre

Art

raG

roup

,In

c.,

308

B.R

.85

8(B

ankr

.N

.D.

Ill.

2003

);O

ffici

alC

omm

.OfU

nsec

ured

Cre

dito

rsof

Art

raG

roup

,Inc

.v.A

rtra

Gro

up,I

nc.(

Inre

Art

raG

roup

,Inc

.),30

0B

.R.6

99(B

ankr

.N.D

.Ill.

2003

).

Asa

rco,

LLC

No.

05-2

1207

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.Tex

.)

Tw

oco

mpe

ting

plan

swer

epr

esen

ted

toth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tdu

ring

the

confi

rmat

ion

hear

ing:

(i)th

ese

vent

ham

ende

dpl

anof

reor

gani

zatio

nof

Deb

tors

’est

rang

edpa

rent

,Asa

rco,

Inc.

,as

mod

ified

onA

ugus

t27

,200

9;an

d(ii

)Deb

tors

’six

tham

ende

dpl

anof

reor

gani

zatio

n,as

mod

ified

Aug

ust

27,2

009.

Con

sider

atio

nof

ath

irdco

mpe

ting

plan

,fil

edby

Har

bing

erC

apita

l,a

bond

-ho

lder

ofA

sarc

oLL

C,

was

abat

edon

Har

bing

er’s

mot

ion.

The

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

confi

rmat

ion

hear

ing

conc

lude

don

Aug

ust

28,2

009.

On

Aug

ust

31,

2009

,th

eba

nkru

ptcy

judg

eiss

ued

are

port

and

reco

mm

enda

tion

reco

mm

endi

ngco

nfirm

a-tio

nof

the

Pare

nt’s

plan

.D

ebto

rsap

peal

edth

ere

port

and

reco

mm

enda

tion

toth

eD

istric

tC

ourt

.

On

Sept

embe

r10

,200

9,D

ebto

rsfil

edfu

rthe

rm

odifi

-ca

tion

sto

thei

rsi

xth

plan

ofre

orga

ni-z

atio

n.O

nSe

ptem

ber

24,

2009

,th

eba

nkru

ptcy

judg

eiss

ued

are

port

and

reco

mm

enda

tion

reite

ratin

g,in

the

face

ofD

ebto

rs’

Sept

embe

r10

supp

lem

enta

lfil

ing,

that

the

Pare

nt’s

plan

shou

ldbe

confi

rmed

.O

nN

ovem

ber

13,2

009,

the

dist

rictc

ourt

ente

red

anor

derc

onfir

min

gth

ePa

rent

’spl

an.

App

eals

toth

eFi

fth

Cir

cuit

wer

edi

smis

sed

byth

atco

urt

aseq

uita

bly

moo

ton

Nov

embe

r12

,201

0.

ASA

RCO

,Inc

.v.E

lliot

Man

agem

ent

(in

reA

SARC

O,L

LC),

650

F.3d

593

(5th

Cir

.20

11);

Uni

ted

Stee

l,Pa

per

and

Fore

stry,

etc.

Serv

ice

Wor

kers

Int’l

Uni

onA

FL-C

IOv.

Asa

rco

Inco

rpor

ated

(In

reA

SARC

OLL

C),

401

Fed.

App

x.91

4(5

thC

ir.2

010)

;In

reA

SARC

OLL

C,4

41B

.R.8

13(S

.D.T

ex.

2010

),af

f’d,

ASA

RCO

,In

c.v.

Ellio

tM

anag

emen

t(I

nre

ASA

RCO

,LL

C),

650

F.3d

593

(5th

Cir

.201

1);A

SARC

O,L

LCv.

Barc

lays

Cap

italI

nc.(

Inre

ASA

RCO

LLC

),45

7B

.R.5

75(S

.D.T

ex.2

011)

;In

reA

SARC

OLL

C,4

20B

.R.3

14(S

.D.T

ex.2

009)

;ASA

RC

OLL

Cv.

Am

eric

asM

inin

gC

orp.

,419

B.R

.737

(S.D

.Tex

.200

9);A

SARC

OLL

Cv.

Am

eric

asM

inin

gC

orp.

,404

B.R

.15

0(S

.D.

Tex

.20

09);

ASA

RCO

LLC

v.A

mer

icas

Min

ing

Cor

p.,

396

B.R

.27

8(S

.D.

Tex

.20

08);

ASA

RC

OLL

Cv.

Am

eric

asM

inin

gC

orp.

,382

B.R

.49

(Ban

kr.S

.D.T

ex.2

007)

.See

also

Cen

ter

for

Biol

ogic

alD

iver

sity

v.D

ept.

ofth

eIn

teri

or,6

23F.

3d63

3(9

thC

ir.2

010)

.

21


Asb

esto

sC

laim

sM

anag

emen

tC

orp.

No.

02-3

7124

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Tex

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

May

6,20

03an

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

June

5,20

03.

Inre

Asb

esto

sCla

imsM

gt.C

orp.

,294

B.R

.663

(N.D

.Tex

.200

3).

Bab

cock

&W

ilcox

Co.

No.

00-1

0992

(Ban

kr.

E.D

.La.

)

Am

ende

dpl

anre

com

men

ded

forc

onfir

mat

ion

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tD

ecem

ber

28,2

005,

confi

rmed

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

Janu

ary

17,2

006.

Cap

lin&

Dry

sdal

eC

htd.

v.Ba

bcoc

k&

Wilc

oxC

o.(I

nre

Babc

ock

&W

ilcox

Co.

),52

6F.

3d82

4(5

thC

ir.

2008

);A

mer

.N

ucle

arIn

sure

rsv.

The

Bab-

cock

&W

ilcox

Co.

(In

reT

heBa

bcoc

k&

Wilc

oxC

o.),

69Fe

d.A

ppx.

659

(5th

Cir

.200

3);C

lyde

Berg

eman

n,In

c.v.

The

Babc

ock

&W

ilcox

Co.

(In

reT

heBa

bcoc

k&

Wilc

oxC

o.),

250

F.3d

955

(5th

Cir

.200

1);I

nre

Babc

ock

&W

ilcox

Co.

,42

5B

.R.

266

(E.D

.La

.20

10),

vaca

ting

and

rem

andi

ngIn

reBa

bcoc

k&

Wilc

oxC

o.,4

13B

.R.3

37(B

ankr

.E.D

.La.

2009

),va

cate

d,42

5B

.R.2

66(E

.D.L

a.20

10);

The

Babc

ock

&W

ilcox

Co.

v.So

uthe

rnIn

dian

aG

as&

Elec

.C

o.(I

nre

The

Babc

ock

&W

ilcox

Co.

),31

6B

.R.

62(B

ankr

.E

.D.L

a.20

03);

Inre

Babc

ock

&W

ilcox

Co.

,274

B.R

.230

(Ban

kr.E

.D.L

a.20

02);

Wilc

oxC

onstr

.Co.

.v.B

abco

ck&

Wilc

oxC

o.(I

nre

Babc

ock

&W

ilcox

Co.

),25

0F.

3d95

5(5

thC

ir.

2001

).Se

eal

soBa

bcoc

k&

Wilc

oxC

o.v.

McG

riff,

Seib

els&

Will

iam

s,In

c.,2

35F.

R.D

.632

(E.D

.La.

2006

).

Bra

uer

Supp

lyC

o.N

o.05

-517

54(B

ankr

.E

.D.M

o.)

Four

tham

ende

dpl

anco

nfirm

edby

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onD

ecem

ber8

,200

6;co

nfirm

edby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Janu

ary

5,20

07.

Bur

ns&

Roe

No.

00-4

1610

(Ban

kr.

D.N

.J.)

Four

tham

ende

dpl

anco

nfirm

edby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Febr

uary

23,2

009.

Car

eyC

anad

a,In

c.N

os.9

0-10

016-

8B1,

90-1

0017

-8B

1(B

ankr

.M

.D.F

la.)

Join

tpl

anof

reor

gani

zatio

nw

ithC

elot

exC

orp.

con-

firm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urto

nD

ecem

ber6

,199

6an

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Mar

ch4,

1997

.

See

Cel

otex

-rel

ated

deci

sion

s.

Cel

otex

Cor

p.N

os.9

0-10

016-

8B1,

90-1

0017

-8B

1(B

ankr

.M

.D.F

la.)

Join

tpl

anof

reor

gani

zatio

nw

ithC

arey

Can

ada

con-

firm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urto

nD

ecem

ber6

,199

6an

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Mar

ch4,

1997

.

Cla

rem

ontM

cKen

naC

olle

gev.

Asb

esto

sSet

tlem

entT

rust

(In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

),61

3F.

3d13

18(1

1th

Cir

.20

10);

Asb

esto

sSe

ttlem

ent

Tru

stv.

Con

tinen

tal

Ins.

Co.

(In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

),29

9Fe

d.A

ppx.

850

(11t

hC

ir.2

008)

;Fib

re-

boar

dC

orp.

v.C

elot

exC

orp.

(In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

),47

2F.

3d13

18(1

1th

Cir

.20

06);

Dan

aC

orp.

v.C

elot

exA

sbes

tosS

ettle

men

tTru

st,25

1F.

3d11

07(6

thC

ir.

2001

);O

wen

s-Illi

nois,

Inc.

v.Ra

pid

Am

.C

orp.

(In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

),

Cha

rt3

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

22


124

F.3d

619

(4th

Cir

.199

7);H

illsb

orou

ghH

oldi

ngsC

orp.

v.C

elot

exC

orp.

,12

3B

.R.1

018

(M.D

.Fla

.199

0);S

outh

ern

Wes

leya

nU

niv.

v.A

ndre

ws(

Inre

Cel

otex

Cor

p.),

427

B.R

.90

9(B

ankr

.M

.D.

Fla.

2010

);A

sbes

tos

Settl

e-m

ent

Tru

stv.

And

erso

nM

em.

Hos

p.(I

nre

Cel

otex

Cor

p.),

380

B.R

.89

5(B

ankr

.M.D

.Fla

.200

8);I

nre

Cel

otex

Cor

p.,3

80B

.R.6

23(B

ankr

.M.D

.Fl

a.20

07);

Asb

esto

sSet

tlem

entT

rust

v.Po

rtA

uth.

OfN

Y&

NJ(

Inre

Cel

otex

Cor

p.),

377

B.R

.345

(Ban

kr.M

.D.F

la.2

006)

;Cel

otex

Cor

p.v.

Alls

tate

Ins.

Co.

(In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

),33

6B

.R.8

33(B

ankr

.M.D

.Fla

.200

5);A

sbes

tos

Settl

emen

tTru

stv.

Uta

h(I

nre

Cel

otex

Cor

p.),

330

B.R

.815

(Ban

kr.M

.D.

Fla.

2005

);In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

,289

B.R

.460

(Ban

kr.M

.D.F

la.2

003)

;In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

,24

5B

.R.

174

(Ban

kr.

M.D

.Fl

a.20

00);

Inre

Cel

otex

Cor

p.,

224

B.R

.85

3(B

ankr

.M

.D.

Fla.

1998

);In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

,20

4B

.R.

586

(M.D

.Fl

a.19

96);

Cel

otex

Cor

p.v.

AIU

Ins.

Co.

(In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

),18

7B

.R.7

46(M

.D.F

la.1

995)

;In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

,152

B.R

.667

(Ban

kr.M

.D.F

la.1

993)

;In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

,152

B.R

.661

(Ban

kr.M

.D.

Fla.

1993

);In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

,149

B.R

.997

(Ban

kr.M

.D.F

la.1

993)

;In

reC

elot

exC

orp.

,14

0B

.R.

912

(Ban

kr.

M.D

.Fl

a.19

92);

Inre

Cel

otex

Cor

p.,

123

B.R

.91

7(B

ankr

.M

.D.

Fla.

1991

);H

illsb

orou

ghH

oldi

ngs

Cor

p.v.

Cel

otex

Cor

p.(I

nre

Hill

sbor

ough

Hol

ding

sC

orp.

),12

3B

.R.

1004

(Ban

kr.M

.D.F

la.1

990)

.

C.E

.Thu

rsto

nN

o.03

-759

32-

SCS

(Ban

kr.

E.D

.Va.

)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urtM

arch

30,2

006.

Chi

cago

Fire

Bri

ckN

o.01

-454

83(B

ankr

.N

.D.C

al.)

Peti

tion

filed

Oct

ober

10,

2001

.Se

cond

Am

ende

dPl

anfil

edJu

ly11

,201

0.Se

cond

Am

ende

dD

iscl

osur

eSt

atem

ent

appr

oved

Sept

embe

r9,

2010

.

Chr

isty

Ref

rac-

tori

esC

o.LL

CN

o.08

-485

41(B

ankr

.E

.D.M

o.)

Petit

ion

filed

Oct

ober

29,

2008

.O

nJu

ly13

,20

11,

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

issu

edan

orde

rco

nfirm

ing

the

Firs

tA

men

ded

Plan

and

reco

mm

endi

ngth

atth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

issu

eth

e52

4(g)

inju

ncti

ons.

On

Aug

ust

19,

2011

,th

edi

stri

ctco

urt

ente

red

anor

der

issu

ing

the

524(

g)in

junc

tions

.

Com

bust

ion

Eng

inee

ring

No.

03-1

0495

(Ban

kr.

D.D

el.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

June

23,

2003

and

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onA

ugus

t13

,20

03;

confi

rmat

ion

orde

rva

cate

dby

the

Thi

rdC

ircu

iton

Dec

embe

r2,

2004

.

Mod

ified

post

-rem

and

plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nk-

rupt

cyco

urt

onD

ecem

ber

19,

2005

;di

stri

ctco

urt

Inre

Com

busti

onEn

g’g,I

nc.,

391

F.3d

190

(3d

Cir

.200

4);C

erta

inU

nder

-w

rite

rsat

Lloy

d’s,

Lond

onv.

AB

BLu

mm

usG

loba

l,In

c.,

337

B.R

.22

(S.D

.N.Y

.200

5);T

IGIn

s.C

o.v.

Com

busti

onEn

g’g,I

nc.(

Inre

Com

busti

onEn

g’g,I

nc.),

366

F.Su

pp.2

d22

4(D

.Del

.200

5);I

nre

AC

andS

,Inc

.,20

11W

L48

0152

7,__

_B

.R._

__(B

ankr

.D.D

el.O

ct.7

,201

1)(a

lsoen

tere

din

the

Arm

stron

g,C

ombu

stion

Engi

neer

ing,

Flin

tkot

e,K

aise

rA

lum

inum

,Ow

ens

Cor

ning

,U

.S.

Min

eral

Prod

ucts,

USG

,W

.R.

Gra

ce,

Pitt

sbur

ghC

orni

ng,

23


orde

raf

firm

ing

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt’s

confi

rmat

ion

orde

ren

tere

don

Mar

ch1,

2006

.N

ARC

O,a

ndM

id-V

alle

yba

nkru

ptcy

case

s);

Inre

Com

busti

onEn

g’g,I

nc.,

295

B.R

.45

9(B

ankr

.D

.D

el.

2003

),re

v’d,

Inre

Com

busti

onEn

g’g,I

nc.,

391

F.3d

190

(3d

Cir

.20

04);

Pre-

Petit

ion

Com

m.

ofSe

lect

Asb

esto

sC

lai-

man

tsv.

Com

busti

onEn

g’g,

Inc.

(In

reC

ombu

stion

Eng’g

,In

c.),

292

B.R

.51

5(B

ankr

.D.D

el.2

003)

.

Con

gole

umC

orp.

No.

03-5

1524

(KC

F)(B

ankr

.D

.N.J

.)

On

Febr

uary

1,20

07,t

heba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tdoc

kete

dop

inio

nsan

dor

ders

findi

ngde

btor

s’te

nth

plan

and

the

CN

Ain

sure

rs’

seco

ndpl

anun

confi

rmab

leas

am

atte

rof

law

.O

nJu

ne5,

2008

,th

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tiss

ued

anop

inio

nfin

ding

anam

ende

dpr

opos

edpl

anof

reor

gani

zatio

nfil

edon

Febr

uary

5,20

08by

debt

ors,

futu

recl

aim

ants

’rep

rese

ntat

ive,

and

the

offi-

cial

bond

hold

er’s

com

mitt

eeth

epl

anun

confi

rmab

leas

am

atte

rof

law

.On

Febr

uary

26,2

009,

the

bank

-ru

ptcy

cour

tis

sued

anop

inio

nfin

ding

anam

ende

djo

int

plan

filed

onN

ovem

ber

14,

2008

byde

btor

s,th

eof

ficia

lbo

ndho

lder

’sco

mm

ittee

,an

dth

eof

ficia

lco

mm

ittee

ofas

best

oscl

aim

ants

unco

nfirm

able

asa

mat

ter

ofla

w,

and

stat

ing

that

the

Cha

pter

11ca

sew

ould

bedi

smis

sed

asof

Mar

ch18

,200

9.T

heba

nk-

rupt

cyco

urts

taye

dits

dism

issa

lord

erpe

ndin

gap

peal

onM

arch

3,20

09.

On

Aug

ust

17,

2009

,th

edi

stri

ctco

urt

ente

red

anor

derr

ever

sing

inpa

rtan

daf

firm

ing

inpa

rtth

eba

nk-

rupt

cyco

urt’s

orde

rden

ying

confi

rmat

ion

ofth

epl

an,

reve

rsin

gan

dva

catin

gth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

t’sor

der

dism

issi

ngth

eC

hapt

er11

case

,and

with

draw

ing

the

refe

renc

eas

toal

lfut

ure

proc

eedi

ngsi

nth

eba

nkru

ptcy

case

.On

Sept

embe

r24,

2009

,cer

tain

insu

rers

filed

anap

peal

ofth

edi

stri

ctco

urt’s

orde

r.O

nO

ctob

er5,

2009

,th

edi

stri

ctco

urt

issu

edan

opin

ion

and

orde

rre

fusi

ngto

cert

ifyth

eap

peal

for

inte

rlocu

tory

revi

ew.

On

June

7,20

10,

the

Dis

tric

tC

ourt

confi

rmed

the

Four

thA

men

ded

Join

tPl

anof

Reo

rgan

izat

ion

filed

by

Cen

tury

Inde

m.C

o.v.

Con

gole

umC

orp.

(In

reC

ongo

leum

Cor

p.),

426

F.3d

675

(3d

Cir

.20

05);

Inre

Con

gole

umC

orp.

,41

4B

.R.

44(D

.N.J

.20

09);

Baro

n&

Budd

,P.

C.

v.U

nsec

ured

Asb

esto

sC

laim

ants

Com

m.

(In

reC

on-

gole

umC

orp.

),32

1B

.R.

147

(D.N

.J.

2005

);In

reC

ongo

leum

Cor

p.,

362

B.R

.19

8(B

ankr

.D

.N.J

.20

07);

Inre

Con

gole

umC

orp.

,36

2B

.R.

167

(Ban

kr.D

.N.J

.200

7).

Cha

rt3

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

24


Deb

tors

,the

AC

C,t

heFC

R,a

ndth

eof

ficia

lcom

mitt

eeof

bond

hold

ers

onM

arch

11,2

010.

An

appe

alto

the

Thi

rdC

ircui

tby

cert

ain

clai

man

ts(N

o.10

-301

1)w

asdi

smiss

edas

‘‘equ

itabl

ym

oot’’

onO

ctob

er7,

2010

.

C.P

.Hal

lC

ompa

nyN

o.11

-264

43(B

ankr

.N

.D.I

ll.)

Petit

ion

filed

June

24,2

011.

Dan

aC

orpo

ratio

nN

o.06

-103

54(B

RL

)(B

ankr

.S.

D.N

.Y.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tD

ecem

ber

26,

2007

;app

eals

byce

rtai

nas

best

oscl

aim

ants

dism

isse

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Sept

embe

r30

,200

8;re

mai

n-in

gap

peal

byon

eas

best

oscl

aim

ant

dism

isse

dby

the

Seco

ndC

ircu

iton

Dec

embe

r23

,200

8.

Jasco

Too

ls,In

c.v.

Dan

aC

orp.

(In

reD

ana

Cor

p.),

574

F.3d

129

(2d

Cir.

2009

);A

dH

ocC

omm

.OfP

erso

nalI

njur

yA

sbes

tosC

laim

ants

v.D

ana

Cor

p.(I

nre

Dan

aC

orp.

),41

2B

.R.5

3(S

.D.N

.Y.2

008)

;In

reD

ana

Cor

p.,3

79B

.R.

449

(S.D

.N.Y

.20

07);

Inre

Dan

aC

orp.

,39

0B

.R.

100

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.20

08);

Inre

Dan

aC

orp.

,367

B.R

.409

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.2

007)

;In

reD

ana

Cor

p.,3

58B

.R.5

67(B

ankr

.S.D

.N.Y

.200

6);I

nre

Dan

aC

orp.

,351

B.R

.96

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.2

006)

;In

reD

ana

Cor

p.,3

50B

.R.1

44(B

ankr

.S.D

.N.Y

.20

06);

Inre

Dan

aC

orp.

,344

B.R

.35

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.2

006)

.

Del

awar

eIn

sula

tion

sD

istr

ibut

ors

No.

89-0

0295

(Ban

kr.

D.D

el.)

Pla

nco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onSe

ptem

ber

9,19

92.

Dur

abla

Man

ufac

turi

ngC

o.

No.

09-1

4415

-M

FW

(Ban

kr.

D.D

el.)

Petit

ion

filed

Dec

embe

r15

,20

09.

Dur

abla

Can

ada

filed

itsow

npe

titio

non

Nov

embe

r8,

2010

(No.

10-

1359

3).

Plan

filed

byde

btor

s,A

CC

,an

dFC

Ron

Nov

embe

r8,

2010

,w

ithd

raw

non

June

29,

2011

and

refil

edth

atsa

me

day.

Dis

clos

ure

stat

emen

tap

prov

edSe

ptem

ber

22,2

011.

Eag

le-P

iche

rIn

dust

ries

No.

91-1

0100

(Ban

kr.S

.D.

Ohi

o)

No.

05-1

2601

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.O

hio)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

and

dist

rict

cour

tson

Nov

embe

r18

,199

6.

Com

pany

filed

ane

wba

nkru

ptcy

petit

ion

onA

pril

11,2

005.

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

June

28,2

006.

Car

adon

Doo

rs&

Win

dow

s,In

c.v.

Eagl

e-Pi

cher

Indu

s.,In

c.(I

nre

Eagl

e-Pi

cher

Indu

s.,In

c.),

447

F.3d

461

(3d

Cir

.20

06);

Am

eric

anIm

agin

gSe

r-vi

ces,

Inc.

v.Ea

gle-

Pich

erIn

dus.,

Inc.

(In

reEa

gle-

Pich

erIn

dus.,

Inc.

),96

3F.

2d85

5(6

thC

ir.1

992)

;In

reEa

gle-

Pich

erH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

,345

B.R

.860

(S.D

.O

hio

2006

);O

ffici

alC

omm

.of

Uns

ecur

edC

redi

tors

v.Ea

gle-

Pich

erIn

dus.,

Inc.

(In

reEa

gle-

Pich

erIn

dus.,

Inc.

),16

9B

.R.

130

(S.D

.O

hio

1994

);In

reEa

gle-

Pich

erIn

dus.,

203

B.R

.256

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.Ohi

o19

96),

aff’d

,19

96U

.S.

Dis

t.LE

XIS

1716

0(S

.D.

Ohi

oN

ov.

18,

1996

),af

f’dw

ithou

top

.,17

2F.

3d48

(6th

Cir

.19

98);

Inre

Eagl

e-Pi

cher

Indu

s.,18

9B

.R.

681

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.O

hio

1995

),af

f’d,

1996

U.S

.D

ist.

Lexi

s22

742

(S.D

.O

hio

1996

);In

reEa

gle-

Pich

erIn

dus.,

144

B.R

.69

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.O

hio

1992

).

E.J

.B

arte

llsC

o.,I

nc.

No.

00-1

0390

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.Was

h.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Febr

uary

14,2

001.

25


Fede

ral-M

ogul

No.

01-1

0578

(Ban

kr.

D.D

el.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Nov

embe

r8,

2007

;co

nfirm

atio

nor

der

affir

med

bydi

stri

ctco

urt

onN

ovem

ber1

5,20

07.O

pini

onan

dor

derd

eclin

ing

confi

rmat

ion

ofal

tern

ativ

e‘‘P

lan

B’’

ente

red

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Sept

embe

r30

,200

8.

Inre

Ken

singt

onIn

t’lLt

d.,3

68F.

3d28

9(3

dC

ir.2

004)

(also

appl

icab

leto

the

Arm

stron

g,O

wen

sCor

ning

,USG

Cor

p.,a

ndW

.R.G

race

bank

rupt

cies

);In

reK

ensin

gton

Int’l

Ltd.

,353

F.3d

211

(3d

Cir

.200

3)(a

lsoap

plic

able

toth

eA

rmstr

ong,

Ow

ensC

orni

ng,U

SGC

orp.

,and

W.R

.Gra

ceba

nkru

ptci

es);

Inre

Fede

ral-

Mog

ulG

loba

l,In

c.,

300

F.3d

368

(3d

Cir

.20

02);

Inre

Fede

ral-M

ogul

Glo

bal,

Inc.

,40

2B

.R.

625

(D.

Del

.20

09),

aff’g

Inre

Fed-

eral

-Mog

ulG

loba

l,In

c.,3

85B

.R.5

60(B

ankr

.D.D

el.2

008)

;In

reFe

dera

l-M

ogul

Glo

bal,

Inc.

,33

0B

.R.

133

(D.

Del

.20

05);

Inre

Fede

ral-M

ogul

Glo

bal,

Inc.

,43

8B

.R.

787

(Ban

kr.

D.

Del

.20

10);

Inre

Fede

ral-M

ogul

Glo

bal,

Inc.

,41

1B

.R.

148

(Ban

kr.

D.

Del

.20

08);

Inre

Fede

ral-

Mog

ulG

loba

l,In

c.,

385

B.R

.56

0(B

ankr

.D

.D

el.

2008

);In

reFe

dera

l-M

ogul

Glo

bal,

Inc.

,282

B.R

.301

(Ban

kr.D

.Del

.),m

anda

mus

deni

ed,3

00F.

3d36

8(3

dC

ir.

2002

),ce

rt.

deni

ed,

537

U.S

.11

48(2

003)

.Se

eal

soFe

dera

l-M

ogul

U.S

.A

sbes

tos

Pers

onal

Inju

ryT

rust

v.C

onti

nent

alC

as.

Co.

,__

F.3d

__,N

o.10

-129

0(6

thC

ir.J

uly

8,20

11);

Arn

old

v.G

arlo

ck,

278

F.3d

426

(5th

Cir

.200

1).

Flin

tkot

eC

o.N

o.04

-113

00(J

KF

)(B

ankr

.D

.Del

.)

Am

ende

dpl

anfil

edby

Deb

tors

,th

eA

sbes

tos

Cla

i-m

ants

’C

omm

itte

e,an

dth

eFu

ture

Cla

ims

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

onJu

ne22

,200

9.C

onfir

mat

ion

hear

-in

gco

mm

ence

dO

ctob

er25

-26,

2010

and

cont

inue

don

Sept

embe

r12

,13

,an

d19

,20

11.

Cer

tain

post

-co

nfirm

atio

nhe

arin

gam

endm

ents

wer

em

ade

duri

ngN

ovem

ber,

2011

.C

losi

ngar

gum

ents

are

sche

dule

dfo

rM

arch

28,2

012.

Hop

kins

v.Pl

antI

nsul

atio

nC

o.,3

42B

.R.7

03(D

.Del

.200

6);C

erta

inU

nder

-w

rite

rsat

Lloy

d’s,

Lond

onv.

Futu

reA

sbes

tosC

laim

sRep

rese

ntat

ive

(In

reK

aise

rA

lum

inum

Cor

p.),

327

B.R

.554

(D.D

el.2

005)

(con

solid

ated

with

Lond

onM

kt.I

ns.C

os.v

.Bar

on&

Budd

PC(I

nre

The

Flin

tkot

eC

o.);

Inre

AC

andS

,In

c.,20

11W

L48

0152

7,__

_B

.R._

__(B

ankr

.D.D

el.O

ct.7

,201

1)(a

lsoen

tere

din

the

Arm

stron

g,C

ombu

stion

Engi

neer

ing,

Flin

tkot

e,K

aise

rA

lum

i-nu

m,

Ow

ens

Cor

ning

,U

.S.

Min

eral

Prod

ucts,

USG

,W

.R.

Gra

ce,

Pitts

burg

hC

orni

ng,N

ARC

O,a

ndM

id-V

alley

bank

rupt

cyca

ses)

.See

also

Flin

tkot

eC

o.v.

Gen

’lA

cc.A

ssur.

Co.

,480

F.Su

pp.2

d11

67(N

.D.C

al.2

007)

;Flin

tkot

eCo.

v.G

en’l

Acc

.Assu

r.C

o.,4

10F.

Supp

.2d

875

(N.D

.Cal

.200

6);H

opki

nsv.

Plan

tIn

sula

tion

Co.

,349

B.R

.805

(N.D

.Cal

.200

6).

For

ty-E

ight

Insu

latio

nsN

o.85

-B-

0506

1(B

ankr

.N

.D.I

ll.)

Mod

ified

Four

thA

men

ded

Plan

ofLi

quid

atio

nco

n-fir

med

byba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

May

16,1

995.

Inre

Fort

y-Ei

ght

Insu

latio

ns,

115

F.3d

1294

(7th

Cir

.19

97);

Inre

Fort

y-Ei

ght

Insu

latio

ns,

Inc.

,13

3B

.R.

973

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Il

l.19

91),

aff’d

,14

9B

.R.8

60(N

.D.I

ll.19

92);

Inre

Fort

y-Ei

ghtI

nsul

atio

ns,I

nc.,

109

B.R

.315

(N.D

.Ill.

1989

).

Ful

ler-

Aus

tin

Insu

latio

nC

o.N

o.98

-020

38(B

ankr

.D

.Del

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt,

sitt

ing

inba

nk-

rupt

cy,o

nN

ovem

ber

13,1

998.

See

Fulle

r-A

ustin

Insu

latio

nC

o.v.

Hig

hlan

dsIn

s.C

o.,1

35C

al.A

pp.4

th95

8,38

Cal

.Rpt

r.3d

716

(200

6),c

ert.

deni

ed,1

27S.

Ct.

248

(200

6).

Cha

rt3

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

26


Gar

lock

Seal

ing

Tec

hnol

ogie

sLL

C

No.

10-3

1607

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.N.C

.)

Pet

itio

nfil

edJu

ne5,

2010

.C

o-de

btor

sar

eT

heA

ncho

rPa

ckin

gC

ompa

nyan

dG

arri

son

Liti

gati

onM

anag

emen

tGro

upLt

d.D

ebto

rsfil

eda

plan

ofre

or-

gani

zatio

non

Nov

embe

r28

,201

1.

Gat

keC

orp.

No.

87-3

0308

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Ind

.)

Seco

ndam

ende

dpl

anof

liqui

datio

nfil

edA

ugus

t17

,19

89;

case

conv

erte

dto

Cha

pter

7on

Aug

ust

9,19

91.

Gen

eral

Mot

ors

Cor

p.(n

/k/a

Mot

ors

Liq

uida

tion

Co.

)

No.

09-5

0026

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.)

Pet

itio

nfil

edJu

ne1,

2009

.A

sbes

tos

Cla

iman

ts’

Com

mit

tee

appo

inte

dM

arch

2,20

10.

Deb

tors

’m

otio

nfo

rap

poin

tmen

tof

anFC

Rgr

ante

dA

pril

8,20

10.

Am

ende

dJo

int

Cha

pter

11P

lan

filed

Dec

embe

r7,

2010

.M

otio

nto

esti

mat

eD

ebto

rs’

asbe

stos

liabi

litie

sfil

edN

ovem

ber

15,2

010.

Stip

ula-

tion

esti

mat

ing

Deb

tors

’as

best

oslia

bilit

yat

$625

mill

ion

filed

Janu

ary

21,2

011.

Inre

Mot

orsL

iqui

datio

nC

o.,4

39B

.R.3

39(S

.D.N

.Y.2

010)

;In

reM

otor

sLi

quid

atio

nC

o.,4

36B

.R.7

52(S

.D.N

.Y.2

010)

;In

reM

otor

sLiq

uida

tion

Co.

,447

B.R

.150

,(B

ankr

.S.D

.N.Y

.201

1);I

nre

Mot

orsL

iqui

datio

nC

o.,

438

B.R

.36

5(B

ankr

.S.

D.N

.Y.

2010

);In

reG

ener

alM

otor

sC

orp.

,40

9B

.R.2

4(B

ankr

.S.D

.N.Y

.200

9);I

nre

Gen

eral

Mot

orsC

orp.

,407

B.R

.463

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.2

009)

.

G-I

Hol

ding

sN

os.

01-3

0135

[RG

]an

d01

-38

790

[RG

](B

ankr

.D

.N.J

.)

Eig

hth

amen

ded

join

tpl

anof

reor

gani

zati

onfil

edO

ctob

er5,

2009

byD

ebto

r,O

ffici

alC

omm

ittee

ofA

sbes

tos

Cla

iman

ts,

and

Leg

alR

epre

sent

ativ

eof

futu

recl

aim

ants

.O

rder

confi

rmin

gth

epl

anjo

intly

issu

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

and

dist

rict

cour

ton

Nov

embe

r12

,20

09.

On

Dec

embe

r17

,20

09,

afte

rD

ebto

rcl

aim

sth

atit

subs

tant

ially

cons

umm

ated

itspl

an,

the

Thi

rdC

ircu

itis

sued

ast

aype

ndin

gap

peal

(No.

09-4

296)

.T

heT

hird

Cir

cuit

ente

red

anor

der

onJa

nuar

y5,

2010

stat

ing

that

the

stay

wou

ldbe

vaca

ted

purs

uant

toa

stip

ulat

ion

betw

een

the

Deb

tor

and

the

IRS.

G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.v.

Relia

nceI

ns.C

o.,5

86F.

3d24

7(3

dC

ir.2

009)

;Offi

cial

Com

m.o

fAsb

esto

sCla

iman

tsv.

G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.(I

nre

G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.),

385

F.3d

313

(3d

Cir

.200

4);I

nre

G-I

Hol

ding

sInc

.,42

0B

.R.2

16(D

.N.J

.20

09);

Offi

cial

Com

m.

ofA

sbes

tos

Cla

iman

tsof

G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.v.

Hey

-m

an,3

59B

.R.4

52(S

.D.N

.Y.2

007)

;Offi

cial

Com

m.o

fAsb

esto

sCla

iman

tsof

G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.v.

Hey

man

,342

B.R

.416

(S.D

.N.Y

.200

6);I

nre

G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.,

380

F.Su

pp.2

d46

9(D

.N.J

.20

05);

Offi

cial

Com

m.

ofA

sbes

tosC

laim

ants

v.Ba

nkof

N.Y

.(In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

),31

8B

.R.6

6(D

.N.J

.200

4),a

ff’d,

122

Fed.

App

x.55

4(3

dC

ir.2

004)

;Offi

cial

Com

m.o

fA

sbes

tosC

laim

ants

ofG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

v.H

eym

an,3

06B

.R.7

46(S

.D.N

.Y.

2004

);In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

,29

5B

.R.

502

(D.N

.J.

2003

);O

ffici

alC

omm

.of

Asb

esto

sC

laim

ants

v.G

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

(In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

),29

5B

.R.

211

(D.N

.J.

2003

);In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

),29

5B

.R.

222

(D.N

.J.2

003)

;In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

),29

5B

.R.5

02(D

.N.J

.200

3);

Inre

G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.,2

18F.

R.D

.428

(D.N

.J.2

003)

;Offi

cial

Com

m.O

fA

sbes

tos

Cla

iman

tsof

G-I

Hol

ding

sv.

Hey

man

,27

7B

.R.

20(S

.D.N

.Y.

2002

);In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

,44

3B

.R.

645

(Ban

kr.

D.N

.J.

2010

);O

ffici

alC

omm

.O

fA

sbes

tos

Cla

iman

tsv.

Bldg

.M

at’ls

Cor

p.of

Am

eric

a(I

nre

G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.),

338

B.R

.232

(Ban

kr.D

.N.J

.200

6);G

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

v.Be

nnet

(In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

),32

8B

.R.

691

(Ban

kr.

D.N

.J.

2005

);In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

,32

7B

.R.

730

(Ban

kr.

D.N

.J.

2005

);In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

323

B.R

.583

(Ban

kr.D

.N.J

.200

5);G

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

v.T

hose

Part

iesL

isted

On

Exhi

bit

A(I

nre

G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.),

313

B.R

.612

(Ban

kr.

D.N

.J.

2004

);In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

),30

8B

.R.

196

(Ban

kr.

27


D.N

.J.2

004)

;In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

,292

B.R

.804

(Ban

kr.D

.N.J

.200

3);

G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.v.

Har

tford

Acc

.&In

dem

.Co.

(In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

),27

8B

.R.3

76(B

ankr

.D.N

.J.2

002)

;G-I

Hol

ding

s,In

c.v.

Relia

nce

Ins.

Co.

(In

reG

-IH

oldi

ngs,

Inc.

),27

8B

.R.7

25(B

ankr

.D.N

.J.2

002)

.

GIT

/Har

biso

n-W

alke

r/A

PG

reen

No.

02-2

1626

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.Pa

.)

Thi

rdam

ende

dpl

anfil

edby

GIT

and

NA

RC

Oon

Dec

embe

r28

,20

05ap

prov

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onN

ovem

ber

13,

2007

;co

nfirm

atio

nor

der

affir

med

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onJu

ly25

,200

8;co

n-fir

mat

ion

orde

rva

cate

dby

the

Thi

rdC

ircu

itan

dre

man

ded

onM

ay4,

2011

.

Har

tford

Acc

.&In

dem

.Co.

v.Fi

tzpa

tric

k(I

nre

Glo

balI

ndus

.Tec

hs.,

Inc.

),64

5F.

3d20

1(3

dC

ir.

2011

),ce

rt.

deni

ed,

__S.

Ct.

__(N

ov.

7,20

11);

Glo

bal

Indu

s.T

echs

.,In

c.v.

Ash

Tru

ckin

gC

o.(I

nre

Glo

bal

Indu

s.T

echs

.,In

c.),

375

B.R

.155

(Ban

kr.W

.D.P

a.20

07);

Inre

Glo

balI

ndus

.Tec

hs.,

344

B.R

.382

(Ban

kr.W

.D.P

a.20

06);

Glo

balI

ndus

.Tec

hs.,

Inc.

v.A

shT

ruck

-in

gC

o.(I

nre

Glo

balI

ndus

.Tec

hs.,

Inc.

),33

3B

.R.2

51(B

ankr

.W.D

.Pa.

2005

);H

arbi

son-

Wal

ker

Refr

acto

ries

Co.

v.A

CE

Prop

.&C

as.I

ns.C

o.(I

nre

Glo

balI

ndus

.Tec

hs.,

Inc.

),30

3B

.R.7

53(B

ankr

.W.D

.Pa.

2004

),va

cate

din

part

,m

odifi

edin

part

byIn

reG

loba

lIn

dus.

Tec

hs.,

Inc.

,20

04W

L55

5418

(W.D

.Pa.

Feb

3,20

04).

See

also

York

Lini

ngsI

nt’l,

Inc.

v.H

arbi

-so

n-W

alke

rRe

frac

tori

esC

o.,8

39N

.E.2

d76

6(I

nd.A

pp.2

005)

.

Har

nisc

hfeg

erC

orp.

No.

99-0

2171

(Ban

kr.D

el.)

Am

ende

dpl

anco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urto

nM

ay18

,200

1.In

reJo

yG

loba

l,In

c.,4

23B

.R.4

45(D

.Del

.201

0);I

nre

Joy

Glo

bal,

Inc.

,38

1B

.R.6

03(D

.Del

.200

7);I

nre

Joy

Glo

bal,

Inc.

,346

B.R

.659

(D.D

el.

2006

)¡app

eald

ismiss

ed,2

57Fe

d.A

ppx.

539

(3d

Cir

.200

7);I

nre

Har

nisc

h-fe

ger

Indu

s.,In

c.,

270

B.R

.18

8(D

.D

el.

2001

),va

cate

din

part

and

rem

ande

d,80

Fed.

App

x.28

6(3

dC

ir.

Jul.

2,20

03);

Inre

Har

nisc

hfeg

erIn

dus.,

Inc.

,246

B.R

.421

(Ban

kr.N

.D.A

la.2

000)

.

Her

cule

sC

hem

ical

Co.

No.

08-2

7822

-M

SPe

titio

nfil

edA

ugus

t22,

2008

inth

eW

este

rnD

istr

ict

ofPe

nnsy

lvan

ia.

Tra

nsfe

rred

toth

eD

istr

ict

ofN

ewJe

rsey

onSe

ptem

ber

18,

2008

.O

nD

ecem

ber

22,

2009

,th

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tre

com

men

ded

confi

rma-

tion

ofH

ercu

les’

plan

ofre

orga

niza

tion.

On

Janu

ary

6,20

10,t

hedi

stric

tcou

rten

tere

dan

orde

rcon

firm

ing

the

plan

.

Hill

sbor

ough

Hol

ding

sN

o.89

-097

15(B

ankr

.M

.D.

Fla.

)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Mar

ch2,

1995

.In

reH

illsb

orou

ghH

oldi

ngC

orp.

,12

7F.

3d13

98(1

1th

Cir

.19

97);

Inre

Hill

sbor

ough

Hol

ding

Cor

p.,1

16F.

3d13

91(1

1th

Cir

.199

7);W

alte

rInd

us-

trie

s,In

c.v.

Solu

tia,I

nc.(

Inre

Hill

sbor

ough

Hol

ding

sCor

p.),

325

B.R

.334

(Ban

kr.M

.D.F

la.2

005)

;Cav

azos

v.M

id-S

tate

Tru

stII

(In

reH

illsb

orou

ghH

oldi

ngsC

orp.

),26

7B

.R.8

82(B

ankr

.M.D

.Fla

.200

1);W

alte

rv.

Cel

otex

Cor

p.(I

nre

Hill

sbor

ough

Hol

ding

sCor

p.),

197

B.R

.372

(Ban

kr.M

.D.F

la.

1996

);In

reH

illsb

orou

ghH

oldi

ngsC

orp.

,197

B.R

.366

(Ban

kr.M

.D.F

la.

Cha

rt3

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

28


1996

);H

illsb

orou

ghH

oldi

ngsC

orp.

v.C

elot

exC

orp.

,123

B.R

.101

8(M

.D.

Fla.

1990

);H

illsb

orou

ghH

oldi

ngsC

orp.

v.C

elot

exC

orp.

(In

reH

illsb

orou

ghH

oldi

ngsC

orp.

),12

3B

.R.1

004

(Ban

kr.M

.D.F

la.1

990)

.

H.K

.Por

ter

Co.

No.

91-4

68W

WB

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.Pa.

)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onJu

ne25

,19

98.

Tra

vele

rsIn

s.C

o.v.

H.K

.Po

rter

Co.

,45

F.3d

737

(3d

Cir

.19

95);

Con

-tin

enta

lCas

.Co.

v.H

.K.P

orte

rC

o.(I

nre

H.K

.Por

ter

Co.

),37

9B

.R.2

72(W

.D.P

a.20

07),

aff’g

Inre

H.K

.Por

ter

Co.

,358

B.R

.231

(Ban

kr.W

.D.

Pa.2

006)

;Loc

ksv.

U.S

.Tru

stee,

157

B.R

.89

(W.D

.Pa.

1993

);In

reH

.K.

Port

erC

o.,1

83B

.R.9

6(B

ankr

.W.D

.Pa.

1995

);In

reH

.K.P

orte

rCo.

,156

B.R

.16

(Ban

kr.W

.D.P

a.19

93).

Insu

lCo.

No.

02-4

3909

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Ohi

o)

Cha

pter

7ca

se;p

etiti

onfil

edSe

ptem

ber

4,20

02;n

o-as

set

repo

rtfil

edM

ay18

,20

05;

case

clos

edJu

ne7,

2005

.

John

s-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

Nos

.82

B11

656

[BLR

]th

roug

h82

B11

676

[BLR

](S

.D.N

.Y.,

E.D

.N.Y

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Dec

em-

ber

22,

1986

and

affir

med

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onJu

ly15

,198

7.

Tra

vele

rsIn

dem

.C

o.v.

Baile

y,55

7U

.S.

137,

129

S.C

t.21

95(2

009)

;T

rave

lers

Cas

.&

Sur.

Co.

v.C

hubb

Inde

m.

Ins.

Co.

(In

reJo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

),60

0F.

3d13

5(2

dC

ir.

2010

),ce

rt.

deni

ed,

131

S.C

t.64

4(U

.S.

2010

);Jo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

v.C

hubb

Inde

m.I

ns.C

o.(I

nre

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.),

517

F.3d

52(2

dC

ir.

2008

),re

v’d,

129

S.C

t.21

95(2

009)

;T

heA

sbes

tosP

erso

nalI

njur

yPl

aint

iffsv

.Tra

vele

rsIn

dem

.Co.

(In

reJo

hns-M

an-

ville

Cor

p.),

476

F.3d

118

(2d

Cir

.200

7);S

tate

Gov

’tC

redi

tors

’Com

m.f

orPr

op.D

amag

eC

laim

sv.M

cKay

(In

reJo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

),92

0F.

2d12

1(2

dC

ir.1

990)

;Kan

ev.J

ohns

-Man

ville

Cor

p.,8

43F.

2d63

6(2

dC

ir.1

988)

;M

acA

rthu

rC

o.v.

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.(I

nre

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.),

837

F.2d

89(2

dC

ir.1

988)

,cer

tden

ied,

488

U.S

.868

(198

8);I

nre

Com

m.o

fA

sbes

tos-

Rela

ted

Litig

ants,

749

F.2d

3(2

dC

ir.

1984

);T

rave

lers

Inde

m.

Co.

v.C

omm

onLa

wSe

ttlem

ent

Cou

nsel

(In

reJo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

),44

9B

.R.

31(S

.D.N

.Y.

2011

);In

reJo

hns-

Man

ville

Cor

p.,

340

B.R

.49

(S.D

.N.Y

.20

06),

rev’

d,51

7F.

2d52

(2d

Cir

.20

08),

rev’

d,55

7U

.S.

137,

129

S.C

t.21

95(2

009)

,on

rem

and,

600

F.3d

135

(2d

Cir

.20

10);

Inre

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.,6

8B

.R.6

18(B

ankr

.S.D

.N.Y

.198

6),a

ff’d,

78B

.R.

407

(S.D

.N.Y

.19

87),

aff’d

sub

nom

.K

ane

v.Jo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

,84

3F.

2d63

6(2

dC

ir.1

988)

;Alb

ero

v.Jo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

(In

reJo

hns-

Man

ville

Cor

p.),

68B

.R.

155,

(S.D

.N.Y

.19

86);

Uni

ted

Stat

esv.

John

s-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

,63

B.R

.60

0(S

.D.N

.Y.

1986

);M

anvi

lleC

orp.

v.Eq

uity

Sec.

Hol

ders’

Com

m.(

Inre

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.),

60B

.R.8

42,8

45(S

.D.N

.Y.

1986

),re

v’d,

801

F.2d

60(2

dC

ir.19

86);

Inre

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.,5

2B

.R.

940

(S.D

.N.Y

.19

85);

Inre

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.,

45B

.R.

827

(S.D

.N.Y

.19

84);

Robe

rtsv

.Joh

ns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

(In

reJo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

),45

B.R

.82

3(S

.D.N

.Y.

1984

);In

reJo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

,42

B.R

.65

1(S

.D.N

.Y.

1984

);In

reJo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

,40

B.R

.219

(S.D

.N.Y

.198

4),a

ff’g

John

s-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

v.A

sbes

tosL

itig.

Gro

up(I

nre

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.),

26B

.R.

29


420

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.1

983)

,and

GA

FC

orp.

v.Jo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

(In

reJo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

),26

B.R

.40

5(B

ankr

.S.

D.N

.Y.

1983

);In

reJo

hns-

Man

ville

Cor

p.,

39B

.R.

998

(S.D

.N.Y

.19

84);

Com

mer

cial

Uni

onIn

s.C

o.v.

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.(I

nre

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.),

31B

.R.9

65(S

.D.N

.Y.

1983

);In

reJo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

,44

0B

.R.

604

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.20

10);

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.v.

Col

orad

oIn

s.G

uar.

Ass’

n,91

B.R

.22

5(B

ankr

.S.

D.N

.Y.1

988)

;In

reJo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

,68

B.R

.618

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.

1986

);C

omm

ittee

ofA

sbes

tos-R

elate

dLi

tigan

tsv.

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.(I

nre

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.),

60B

.R.

612

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.19

86);

Inre

John

s-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

,36

B.R

.743

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.1

984)

;Joh

ns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

v.A

sbes

tos

Litig

.G

roup

(In

reJo

hns-M

anvi

lleC

orp.

),33

B.R

.25

4(B

ankr

.S.

D.N

.Y.

1983

);Fi

ndley

v.Fa

lise

(In

reJo

int

Easte

rn&

Sout

hern

Dist

rict

sA

sbes

tosL

itig.

),87

8F.

Supp

.473

(E.&

S.D

.N.Y

.199

5),a

ff’d

inpa

rt,r

ev’d

inpa

rt,

78F.

3d76

4(2

dC

ir.19

96);

Find

leyv.

Falis

e(I

nre

John

s-Man

ville

Cor

p.),

982

F.2d

721

(2d

Cir.

1992

).Se

eal

soV

olks

wag

enof

Am

eric

a,In

c.v.

Supe

rior

Cou

rt,

139

Cal

.A

pp.4

th14

81(2

006)

;Fi

ndley

v.T

ruste

esof

the

Man

ville

Perso

nal

Inju

rySe

ttlem

ent

Tru

st(I

nre

Join

tE.

&S.

Dist

s.A

sbes

tos

Litig

.),23

7F.

Supp

.2d

297

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.2

002)

;In

reD

avis,

730

F.2d

176

(5th

Cir.

1984

)(p

ercu

riam

).

JTT

horp

eC

o.N

o.02

-414

87-

H5-

11(B

ankr

.S.

D.T

ex.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Janu

ary

17,

2003

and

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onJa

nuar

y30

,20

03;

follo

win

gap

peal

toth

eFi

fth

Cir

cuit

and

rem

and

byth

eFi

fth

Cir

cuit

afte

ror

alar

gum

ent

but

befo

rean

yru

ling,

plan

re-c

onfir

med

byth

eba

nk-

rupt

cyco

urt

onM

arch

3,20

04an

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Mar

ch3,

2004

.

Inre

JTT

horp

eC

o.,3

08B

.R.7

82(B

ankr

.S.D

.Tex

.200

3).

JTT

horp

e,In

c.N

o.LA

02-

1421

6-B

B(B

ankr

.C

.D.C

al.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eban

krup

tcy

cour

ton

Sept

embe

r6,

2005

and

byth

edi

stric

tcou

rton

Janu

ary

17,2

006.

Kai

ser

Alu

min

umC

orp.

No.

02-1

0429

(Ban

kr.

D.D

el.)

Seco

ndA

men

ded

Join

tPl

anco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

-ru

ptcy

cour

ton

Febr

uary

6,20

06an

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

May

11,2

006.

Inre

Kai

ser

Alu

min

umC

orp.

,45

6F.

3d32

8(3

dC

ir.

2006

);In

reK

aise

rA

lum

inum

Cor

p.,

386

Fed.

App

x.20

1(3

dC

ir.

2010

),va

cati

ngan

dre

man

ding

Mos

sLa

ndin

gC

omm

erci

alPa

rk,

LLC

v.K

aise

rA

lum

inum

Cor

p.(I

nre

Kai

ser

Alu

min

umC

orp.

),39

9B

.R.

596

(D.

Del

.20

09);

Law

Deb

entu

reT

rust

Co.

ofN

ewYo

rkv.

Kai

ser

Alu

min

umC

orp.

(In

reK

aise

rA

lum

inum

Cor

p.),

380

B.R

.344

(D.D

el.2

008)

;Pub

licU

tility

Dist

.No.

1

Cha

rt3

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

30


ofC

lark

Cty

.v.K

aise

rA

lum

inum

Cor

p.(I

nre

Kai

ser

Alu

min

umC

orp.

),36

5B

.R.

447

(D.

Del

.20

07);

Inre

Kai

ser

Alu

min

umC

orp.

,343

B.R

.88

(D.

Del

.200

6);L

awD

eben

ture

Tru

stC

o.v.

Kai

serA

lum

inum

Cor

p.(I

nre

Kai

ser

Alu

min

umC

orp.

),33

9B

.R.

91(D

.D

el.

2006

);C

erta

inU

nder

wri

ters

atLl

oyd’

s,Lo

ndon

v.Fu

ture

Asb

esto

sCla

imsR

epre

sent

ativ

e(I

nre

Kai

ser

Alu

mi-

num

Cor

p.),

327

B.R

.554

(D.D

el.2

005)

;Saf

ety

Nat

’lC

as.C

orp.

v.K

aise

rA

lum

inum

&C

hem

.Cor

p.(I

nre

Kai

serA

lum

inum

Cor

p.),

303

B.R

.299

(D.

Del

.200

3);I

nre

AC

andS

,Inc

.,20

11W

L48

0152

7,__

_B

.R._

__(B

ankr

.D

.Del

.Oct

.7,2

011)

(also

ente

red

inth

eA

rmstr

ong,

Com

busti

onEn

gine

er-

ing,

Flin

tkot

e,K

aise

rA

lum

inum

,O

wen

sC

orni

ng,

U.S

.M

iner

alPr

oduc

ts,U

SG,

W.R

.G

race

,Pi

ttsb

urgh

Cor

ning

,N

AR

CO

,an

dM

id-V

alle

yba

nk-

rupt

cyca

ses)

.Se

eal

soV

olks

wag

enof

Am

eric

a,In

c.v.

Supe

rior

Cou

rt,

139

Cal

.App

.4th

1481

(200

6).

Kee

neC

orp.

No.

93B

4609

0,96

CV

3492

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.)

Four

thA

men

ded

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

June

13,

1996

and

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onJu

ne13

,199

6.

Inre

Kee

neC

orp.

),17

1B

.R.1

80(B

ankr

.S.D

.N.Y

.199

4);K

eene

Cor

p.v.

Col

eman

(In

reK

eene

Cor

p.),

166

B.R

.31

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.19

94);

Inre

Kee

neC

orp.

,164

B.R

.844

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.1

994)

;Kee

neC

orp.

v.A

csta

rIn

s.C

o.(I

nre

Kee

neC

orp.

),16

2B

.R.9

35(B

ankr

.S.D

.N.Y

.199

4).

Ken

tile

Floo

rs,

Inc.

No.

92B

4646

6B

RL

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.)

Pla

nco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onD

ecem

ber

10,1

998.

Lesli

eC

ontr

ols,

Inc.

No.

10-1

2199

-C

SS(B

ankr

.D

.Del

.)

Vol

unta

rype

titi

on,

plan

,an

ddi

sclo

sure

stat

emen

tfil

edJu

ly12

,20

10.

Con

firm

atio

nor

der

ente

red

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Oct

ober

28,

2010

.A

nap

peal

was

filed

onO

ctob

er29

,20

10(N

o.10

-924

(D.

Del

.))

but

rem

ande

dto

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt,

prio

rto

argu

men

t,on

Janu

ary

14,2

011.

Ord

erco

n-fir

min

ga

revi

sed

plan

ente

red

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tJa

nuar

y18

,20

11.

Ord

eraf

firm

ing

the

bank

-ru

ptcy

cour

t’s

confi

rmat

ion

orde

ren

tere

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

tFe

brua

ry7,

2011

(No.

11-0

13,

D.

Del

.);

dist

rict

cour

tis

sued

addi

tion

alfin

ding

sin

supp

ort

ofco

nfirm

atio

non

Mar

ch28

,201

1.

Inre

Lesli

eC

ontr

ols,

Inc.

,437

B.R

.493

(Ban

kr.D

.Del

.201

0).

Lloy

dE

.M

itche

llC

o.N

o.06

-132

50(B

ankr

.D.

Md.

)

Firs

tam

ende

djo

intp

lan

ofliq

uida

tion

filed

byD

ebto

ran

dA

CC

onJu

ly8,

2008

.On

May

6,20

09,D

ebto

ran

dth

eA

CC

filed

ajo

intm

otio

nto

dism

issth

eC

hap-

ter

11ca

se.

On

May

29,

2009

,in

sure

rsM

aryl

and

Cas

ualty

and

Tra

vele

rsfil

eda

plan

ofliq

uida

tion

and

acr

oss-

mot

ion

toap

poin

ta

trus

tee

filed

byin

sure

rs

Inre

Lloy

dE.

Mitc

hell

Co.

,373

B.R

.416

(Ban

kr.D

.Md.

2007

).

31


Mar

ylan

dC

asua

ltyan

dT

rave

lers

,w

hich

was

hear

dSe

ptem

ber

30,

Oct

ober

1,an

dO

ctob

er9,

2009

;a

rulin

gis

pend

ing.

On

May

13,

2010

,the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

issue

da

stip

ulat

edor

der

stay

ing

itsco

nsid

erat

ion

ofth

etr

uste

ecr

oss-

mot

ion

thro

ugh

Oct

ober

13,2

010.

Lyke

sB

ros.

Stea

msh

ipC

o.N

o.95

-104

53(M

.D.F

la.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Apr

il15

,19

97an

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Apr

il15

,199

7.In

reLy

kesB

ros.

Stea

msh

ipC

o.,3

99B

.R.5

55(B

ankr

.M.D

.Fla

.200

9).

M.H

.Det

rick

No.

98B

0100

4(B

ankr

.N

.D.I

ll.)

Plan

confi

rmed

join

tlyby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

and

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Aug

.21,

2002

.

Mid

-Val

ley,

Inc.

(Hal

libur

ton

subs

idia

ries

)

No.

03-3

5592

-JK

F(B

ankr

.W

.D.P

a.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

July

16,

2004

and

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urto

nD

ecem

ber

1,20

04.

Inre

Mid

-Val

ley,I

nc.,

288

Fed.

App

x.78

4(3

dC

ir.20

08);

Inre

Mid

-Val

ley,

Inc.,

305

B.R

.425

(Ban

kr.W

.D.P

a.20

04);

Inre

AC

andS

,Inc

.,20

11W

L48

0152

7,__

_B

.R._

__(B

ankr

.D.D

el.O

ct.7

,201

1)(a

lsoen

tere

din

the

Arm

stron

g,C

ombu

stion

Engi

neer

ing,

Flin

tkot

e,K

aise

rAlu

min

um,O

wen

sCor

n-in

g,U

.S.M

iner

alPr

oduc

ts,U

SG,W

.R.G

race

,Pitt

sbur

ghC

orni

ng,N

ARC

O,a

ndM

id-V

alley

bank

rupt

cyca

ses)

.Se

eal

soA

rchd

ioce

seof

Milw

auke

eSu

ppor

ting

Fund

,In

c.v.

Hal

libur

ton

Co.

,59

7F.

3d33

0(5

thC

ir.20

10),

cert

.gr

ante

d,Ja

n.7,

2011

.

The

Mur

alo

Co.

No.

03-2

6723

-M

S(B

ankr

.D

.N.J

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Dec

embe

r21

,200

7.In

reM

ural

oC

o.,3

01B

.R.6

90(D

.N.J

.200

3);I

nre

Mur

alo

Co.

,295

B.R

.51

2(B

ankr

.D.N

.J.2

003)

.

Mur

phy

Mar

ine

Serv

ices

,Inc

.N

o.01

-009

26(B

ankr

.D.

Del

.)

Plan

filed

onJa

nuar

y23

,20

02;

case

conv

erte

dto

Cha

pter

7on

July

25,2

002.

Nat

iona

lG

yp-

sum

Co.

/Anc

orH

oldi

ngs

Inc.

No.

90-3

7213

(Ban

kr.N

.D.

Tex

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Mar

ch9,

1993

.N

ewN

at’l

Gyp

sum

Co.

v.N

atio

nalG

ypsu

mC

o.Se

ttlem

entT

rust

(In

reN

at’l

Gyp

sum

),21

9F.

3d47

8(5

thC

ir.

2000

);C

entu

ryIn

dem

.C

o.v.

Nat

’lG

ypsu

mC

o.(I

nre

Nat

’lG

ypsu

mC

o.),

208

F.3d

498

(5th

Cir

.20

00);

Don

alds

onLu

fkin

Jenr

ette

Secu

ritie

sC

orp.

v.N

atio

nal

Gyp

sum

Co.

(In

reN

atio

nal

Gyp

sum

Co.

),12

3F.

3d86

1(5

thC

ir.

1997

);In

s.C

o.of

Nor

thA

mer

ica

v.N

GC

Settl

emen

tT

rust

(In

reN

atio

nal

Gyp

sum

Co.

),11

8F.

3d10

56(5

thC

ir.1

997)

;In

reN

atio

nalG

ypsu

mC

o.,1

39B

.R.3

97(N

.D.T

ex.

1992

);In

reN

atio

nalG

ypsu

mC

o.,1

34B

.R.1

88(N

.D.T

ex.1

991)

;In

reN

atio

nal

Gyp

sum

Co.

,25

7B

.R.

184

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.T

ex.

2000

);In

reN

atio

nalG

ypsu

mC

o.,2

43B

.R.6

76(B

ankr

.D.T

ex.1

999)

.See

also

Uni

ted

Cha

rt3

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

32


Stat

esFi

reIn

s.C

o.v.

Nat

iona

lGyp

sum

Co.

,101

F.3d

813

(2d

Cir

.199

6);

Brow

ning

v.Pr

osto

k,16

5S.

W.3

d33

6(T

ex.2

005)

.

Nor

thA

mer

ican

Ref

ract

orie

sC

orp.

(NA

RC

O)

No.

02-2

0198

(Ban

kr.W

.D.

Pa.)

Thi

rdam

ende

dpl

anfil

edby

GIT

and

NA

RC

Oon

Dec

embe

r28

,20

05ap

prov

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urtN

ovem

ber1

3,20

07;d

istr

ictc

ourt

orde

raffi

rm-

ing

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

orde

ren

tere

dJu

ly25

,20

08;

Thi

rdC

ircu

itap

peal

filed

Aug

ust

25,2

008.

Inre

Nor

thA

mer

ican

Refr

acto

ries

Co.

,28

0B

.R.

356

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.Pa

.20

02);

Inre

AC

andS

,In

c.,

2011

WL

4801

527,

___

B.R

.__

_(B

ankr

.D

.Del

.Oct

.7,2

011)

(also

ente

red

inth

eA

rmstr

ong,

Com

busti

onEn

gine

er-

ing,

Flin

tkot

e,K

aise

rA

lum

inum

,O

wen

sC

orni

ng,

U.S

.M

iner

alPr

oduc

ts,U

SG,

W.R

.G

race

,Pi

ttsb

urgh

Cor

ning

,N

AR

CO

,an

dM

id-V

alle

yba

nk-

rupt

cyca

ses)

.Se

eal

soC

ontin

enta

lIn

s.C

o.v.

Hon

eyw

ell

Int’l

,In

c.,

406

N.J

.Su

per.

156,

967

A.2

d31

5(N

.J.

App

.D

iv.

2009

);T

rave

lers

Cas

.&

Sur.

Co.

v.H

oney

wel

lInt

’lIn

c.,8

51N

.Y.S

.2d

426

(N.Y

.App

.Div

.200

8).

Nic

olet

,Inc

.N

o.87

-03

574S

(Ban

kr.

E.D

.Pa.

)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Sept

embe

r21

,198

9.

Ogl

ebay

Nor

ton

Co.

No.

04-1

0558

-JB

R(B

ankr

.D.

Del

.)

Seco

ndam

ende

dpl

anco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onN

ovem

ber

7,20

04.

Com

pany

emer

ged

from

bank

rupt

cyon

Jan.

31,2

005.

Ow

ens

Cor

ning

/Fi

breb

oard

No.

00-0

3837

(Ban

kr.

D.D

el.)

Pla

nco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onSe

ptem

ber

26,2

006;

confi

rmat

ion

orde

raf

firm

edby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Sept

embe

r28

,200

6.

Inre

Ow

ens

Cor

ning

,41

9F.

3d19

5(3

dC

ir.

2005

),re

v’g

Inre

Ow

ens

Cor

ning

,31

6B

.R.

168

(D.

Del

.20

04);

Ow

ens

Cor

ning

v.C

redi

tSu

isse

Firs

tBos

ton,

322

B.R

.719

(D.D

el.2

005)

;In

reO

wen

sCor

ning

,305

B.R

.17

5(D

.Del

.200

4);I

nre

Ow

ensC

orni

ng,2

91B

.R.3

29(B

ankr

.D.D

el.

2003

);In

reK

ensin

gton

Int’l

Ltd.

,368

F.3d

289

(3d

Cir

.200

4),r

ev’g

Inre

Ow

ensC

orni

ng,3

16B

.R.1

68(B

ankr

.D.D

el.2

004)

(also

appl

icab

leto

the

Arm

stron

g,Fe

dera

l-Mog

ul,U

SGC

orp.

,and

W.R

.Gra

ceba

nkru

ptci

es);

Inre

Ken

singt

onIn

t’lLt

d.,3

53F.

3d21

1(3

dC

ir.2

003)

(also

appl

icab

leto

the

Arm

stron

g,Fe

dera

l-Mog

ul,U

SGC

orp.

,and

W.R

.Gra

ceba

nkru

ptci

es);

Inre

AC

andS

,Inc

.,20

11W

L48

0152

7,__

_B

.R._

__(B

ankr

.D.D

el.O

ct.7

,20

11)

(also

ente

red

inth

eA

rmstr

ong,

Com

busti

onEn

gine

erin

g,Fl

intk

ote,

Kai

ser

Alu

min

um,

Ow

ens

Cor

ning

,U

.S.

Min

eral

Prod

ucts,

USG

,W

.R.

Gra

ce,

Pitt

sbur

ghC

orni

ng,

NA

RC

O,

and

Mid

-Val

ley

bank

rupt

cyca

ses)

.Se

eal

soFi

breb

oard

Cor

p.v.

Cel

otex

Cor

p.(I

nre

Cel

otex

Cor

p.),

472

F.3d

1318

(11t

hC

ir.

2006

);Ro

gers

v.M

cCul

logh

,17

3Fe

d.A

ppx.

371

(6th

Cir

.20

06);

Wri

ght

v.O

wen

sC

orni

ng,

450

B.R

.54

1(W

.D.

Pa.2

011)

.

Phi

lade

lphi

aA

sbes

tos

Cor

p.(P

acor

,Inc

.)

No.

86-

0325

2G(B

ankr

.E

.D.P

a.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Nov

embe

r30

,198

9.

33


Pit

tsbu

rgh

Cor

ning

No.

00-2

2876

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.Pa)

.

Seco

ndam

ende

dpl

anfil

edon

Nov

embe

r20

,20

03;

orde

ren

tere

dby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onD

ecem

ber

21,2

006

deny

ing

confi

rmat

ion.

Thi

rdam

ende

dpl

anfil

edJa

nuar

y29

,200

9.

Con

firm

atio

nhe

arin

gco

nduc

ted

for

thre

eda

ysdu

r-in

gJu

ne,

2010

;cl

osin

gar

gum

ents

held

Oct

ober

29,

2010

.Ord

eren

tere

dby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urto

nJu

ne16

,201

1de

nyin

gco

nfirm

atio

n.

Deb

tor

filed

plan

mod

ifica

tion

son

Sept

embe

r23

,20

11.

Inre

Pitts

burg

hC

orni

ngC

orp.

,26

0Fe

d.A

ppx.

463

(3d

Cir

.20

08);

Mt.

McK

inle

yIn

s.C

o.v.

Cor

ning

,In

c.,

399

F.3d

436

(2d

Cir

.20

05);

Inre

Pitts

burg

hC

orni

ngC

orp.

,45

3B

.R.

570

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.Pa

.20

11);

Inre

Pitts

burg

hC

orni

ngC

orp.

,41

7B

.R.

289

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.Pa

.20

06);

Inre

Pitts

burg

hC

orni

ngC

orp.

,30

8B

.R.

716

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.Pa

.20

04),

aff’d

,D

kt.

No.

17,

No.

2:04

-cv-

0119

9-D

SC(W

.D.

Pa.

Dec

.7,

2005

);In

rePi

ttsbu

rgh

Cor

ning

Cor

p.,2

77B

.R.7

4(B

ankr

.W.D

.Pa.

2002

),af

f’d,2

60Fe

d.A

ppx.

463

(3d

Cir

.20

08);

Inre

Pitts

burg

hC

orni

ngC

orp.

,25

5B

.R.

162

(Ban

kr.W

.D.P

a.20

00);

Inre

AC

andS

,Inc

.,20

11W

L48

0152

7,__

_B

.R.

___

(Ban

kr.

D.

Del

.O

ct.

7,20

11)

(also

ente

red

inth

eA

rmstr

ong,

Com

busti

onEn

gine

erin

g,Fl

intk

ote,

Kai

ser

Alu

min

um,O

wen

sCor

ning

,U.S

.M

iner

alPr

oduc

ts,U

SG,W

.R.G

race

,Pitt

sbur

ghC

orni

ng,N

ARC

O,a

ndM

id-

Val

ley

bank

rupt

cyca

ses)

.Se

eal

soM

t.M

cKin

ley

Ins.

Co.

v.C

orni

ng,

Inc.

,91

8N

.Y.S

.2d

22(N

.Y.A

pp.D

iv.2

011)

.

Plan

tIn

sula

tion

Com

pany

No.

09-3

1347

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Cal

.)

Petit

ion

filed

May

20,2

009.

Deb

tor,

offic

ialc

omm

it-te

eof

unse

cure

dcr

edito

rs,a

ndFC

Rfil

eda

join

tpla

nof

reor

gani

zatio

non

June

14,

2010

,a

first

amen

ded

plan

onD

ecem

ber

15,2

010,

and

ase

cond

amen

ded

plan

onM

ay2,

2011

.The

seco

ndam

ende

dpl

anha

sit

self

been

amen

ded

four

tim

es,

mos

tre

cent

lyon

Janu

ary

10,

2012

.T

heco

nfirm

atio

nhe

arin

gto

okpl

ace

from

Dec

embe

r5-

14,2

011.

Clo

sing

argu

men

tsto

okpl

ace

onJa

nuar

y12

,201

2.

Inre

Plan

tIn

sula

tion

Co.

,414

B.R

.646

(Ban

kr.N

.D.C

al.2

009)

.

Plib

rico

Co.

No.

02B

0995

2(B

ankr

.N

.D.I

ll.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tan

dth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onJa

nuar

y30

,200

6.

Por

ter-

Hay

den

Co.

No.

02-5

4152

(Ban

kr.

D.M

d.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

July

5,20

06an

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

July

7,20

06.

Nat

iona

lUni

onFi

reIn

s.C

o.v.

Port

erH

ayde

nC

o.,

408

B.R

.66

(D.

Md.

2009

);N

atio

nal

Uni

onFi

reIn

s.C

o.v.

Port

erH

ayde

nC

o.,

331

B.R

.65

2(D

.M

d.20

05);

Port

er-H

ayde

nC

o.v.

Firs

tSt

ate

Mgt

.G

roup

,In

c.(I

nre

Port

er-H

ayde

nC

o.),

304

B.R

.725

(Ban

kr.D

.Md.

2004

).

Pru

dent

ial

Line

s,In

c.N

o.86

-117

73(B

ankr

.S.

D.N

.Y.)

Pla

nco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onD

ecem

ber

15,

1989

and

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onO

ctob

er4,

1990

.

Asb

esto

sis

Cla

iman

tsv.

Am

eric

anSt

eam

ship

Ow

ners

Mut

.Pr

otec

tion

&In

dem

.A

ss’n

(In

rePr

uden

tial

Line

s),

533

F.3d

151

(2d

Cir

.Ju

ne19

,20

08);

Dic

ola

v.A

mer

ican

S.S.

Ow

ners

Mut

.Pro

tect

ion

&In

dem

.Ass’

n(I

nre

Prud

entia

lLin

es,I

nc.),

158

F.3d

65(2

dC

ir.1

998)

;Dic

ola

v.A

mer

ican

S.S.

Cha

rt3

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

34


Ow

ners

Mut

.Pr

otec

tion

&In

dem

.A

ss’n

(In

rePr

uden

tial

Line

s,In

c.),

170

B.R

.22

2(S

.D.N

.Y.

1994

);In

rePr

uden

tial

Line

s,In

c.),

202

B.R

.13

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.19

96);

Inre

Prud

enti

alLi

nes,

Inc.

),14

8B

.R.

730

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.1

992)

.

Pul

mos

anSa

fety

Equ

ipm

ent

Cor

p.

No.

10-1

6098

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.)

Vol

unta

ryC

hapt

er7

peti

tion

filed

Nov

embe

r15

,20

10.

Qui

gley

Co.

No.

04-1

5739

-SM

B(B

ankr

.S.

D.N

.Y.)

Fou

rth

amen

ded

and

rest

ated

plan

mod

ified

onA

ugus

t6,

2009

.T

heco

nfirm

atio

nhe

arin

g,w

hich

cons

umed

15da

ysof

tria

l,be

gan

Sept

embe

r23

,20

09.

On

Sept

embe

r8,

2010

,th

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tis

sued

findi

ngs

offa

ctan

dco

nclu

sion

sof

law

deny

ing

confi

rmat

ion

and

orde

red

the

part

ies

‘‘to

sche

dule

aco

nfer

ence

todi

scus

sth

edi

smis

sal

orot

her

disp

osi-

tion

ofth

isca

se.’’

On

Sept

embe

r21

,20

10,

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

issu

edit

sor

der

deny

ing

confi

rmat

ion.

Afif

tham

ende

dpl

anw

asfil

edA

pril

6,20

11,f

ollo

w-

ing

debt

or’s

agre

emen

ton

apl

anw

ithth

em

embe

rsof

Ad

Hoc

Com

mitt

eeth

atha

dob

ject

edto

the

prev

ious

plan

s.A

disc

losu

rest

atem

ent

hear

ing

rega

rdin

gth

ene

wpl

anw

assc

hedu

led

for

Aug

ust

4,20

11,

but

has

been

take

nof

fca

lend

arpe

ndin

gis

suan

ceby

the

Seco

ndC

ircu

itof

ade

cisi

onin

the

appe

alof

the

dist

rict

cour

t’s

May

17,

2011

rulin

g(r

epor

ted

at44

9B

.R.1

96).

Inre

Qui

gley

Co.

,449

B.R

.196

(S.D

.N.Y

.201

1);I

nre

Ad

Hoc

Com

m.O

fT

ort

Vic

tims

(In

reQ

uigl

eyC

o.),

327

B.R

.13

8(S

.D.N

.Y.

2005

);Q

uigl

eyC

o.v.

Col

eman

(In

reQ

uigl

eyC

o.),

323

B.R

.70

(S.D

.N.Y

.20

05);

Inre

Qui

gley

Co.

,437

B.R

.102

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.2

010)

;In

reQ

uigl

eyC

o.,3

91B

.R.6

95(B

ankr

.S.D

.N.Y

.200

8);I

nre

Qui

gley

Co.

,383

B.R

.19

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.200

8);I

nre

Qui

gley

Co.

,377

B.R

.110

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.2

007)

;C

ontin

enta

lCas

.Co.

v.Pfi

zer,

Inc.

(In

reQ

uigl

eyC

o.),

361

B.R

.723

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.200

7);Q

uigl

eyC

o.v.

Col

eman

(In

reQ

uigl

eyC

o.),

361

B.R

.670

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.2

007)

;In

reQ

uigl

eyC

o.,3

46B

.R.6

47(B

ankr

.S.D

.N.Y

.20

06).

See

also

I.U

.N

orth

Am

eric

aIn

c.v.

A.I

.U.

Ins.

Co.

,89

6A

.2d

880

(Del

.Sup

er.2

006)

.

Ray

mar

kC

orp.

/R

ayte

chC

orp.

No.

89-0

0293

(Ban

kr.

D.C

onn.

)

Seco

ndam

ende

dpl

anco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onA

ugus

t31

,200

0.

Roc

kW

ool

Man

ufac

turi

ngN

os.

CV

-99-

J-15

89-S

,BK

-96-

0829

5-T

BB

-11

(Ban

kr.N

.D.

Ala

.)

Seco

ndam

ende

dpl

anco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onD

ecem

ber

3,19

99an

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Dec

embe

r6,

1999

.

35


Rut

land

Fire

Cla

yC

o.N

o.99

-113

90(B

ankr

.D.V

t.)Pl

anco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

and

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onN

ovem

ber

17,2

000.

Shoo

k&

Flet

cher

Insu

la-

tion

Co.

No.

02-0

2771

-B

GC

-11

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Ala

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Oct

ober

29,

2002

and

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onN

ovem

ber

8,20

02.

See

Shoo

k&

Flet

cher

Asb

esto

sSe

ttlem

ent

Tru

stv.

Safe

tyN

atio

nal

Cas

.C

o.,

909

A.2

d12

5(D

el.2

006)

.

Skin

ner

Eng

ine

Co.

No.

01-2

3987

-M

BM

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.Pa.

)

On

May

27,

2009

,th

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tis

sued

anor

der

conv

ertin

gth

isca

sefr

omC

hapt

er11

toC

hap-

ter

7on

the

grou

nd,i

nter

alia

,tha

tdeb

tor’s

fifth

plan

ofliq

uida

tion

isun

confi

rmab

lean

dth

atde

btor

and

itsco

-pro

pone

nts

have

been

,and

are,

unab

leto

effe

c-tu

ate

aco

nfirm

able

plan

.O

nM

ay29

,20

10,

the

dist

rict

cour

tiss

ued

anor

dera

ffirm

ing

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt’s

orde

rco

nver

ting

the

case

toC

hapt

er7

(Cas

eN

o.09

-088

6).T

heT

hird

Cir

cuit

hear

dar

gum

ento

nO

ctob

er26

,20

11on

the

appe

als

ofth

eco

nver

sion

orde

rby

debt

oran

dce

rtai

ncl

aim

ants

(Cas

eN

o.10

-22

39).

Inre

Am

eric

anC

apita

lEq

uipm

ent,

LLC

,29

6Fe

d.A

ppx.

270

(3d

Cir

.20

08);

Inre

Am

eric

anC

apita

lEqu

ipm

ent,

LLC

,325

B.R

.37

2(W

.D.P

a.20

05);

Inre

Am

eric

anC

apita

lEqu

ipm

ent,

LLC

,405

B.R

.41

5(W

.D.P

a.20

09),

aff’d

,201

0W

L13

3722

2(W

.D.P

a.M

ar.2

9,20

10);

Inre

Am

eric

anC

apita

lEqu

ipm

ent,

LLC

,324

B.R

.570

(W.D

.Pa.

2005

).

Spec

ial

Ele

ctri

cC

o.N

o.04

-254

71-

11-M

DM

(E.D

.Wis

.)

Cha

pter

11pl

anof

reor

gani

zati

onco

nfirm

edD

ecem

ber

21,2

006.

Spec

ial

Met

als

Cor

p.N

os.

02-1

0335

to02

-103

38(B

ankr

.E

.D.K

y.)

Cha

pter

11pl

anof

reor

gani

zatio

nco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urto

nSe

ptem

ber2

9,20

03;c

onfir

mat

ion

orde

raffi

rmed

byth

edi

stric

tcou

rton

Mar

ch12

,200

4.

Cen

tury

Inde

m.C

o.v.

Spec

ialM

etal

sCor

p.(I

nre

Spec

ialM

etal

sCor

p.),

360

B.R

.244

(E.D

.Ky.

2006

);C

entu

ryIn

dem

.Co.

v.Sp

ecia

lMet

alsC

orp.

(In

reSp

ecia

lMet

alsC

orp.

),31

7B

.R.3

26(B

ankr

.E.D

.Ky.

2004

).

Spec

ialt

yP

ro-

duct

sH

oldi

ngC

orp.

and

Bon

-de

xIn

tern

a-tio

nal,

Inc.

No.

10-1

1780

-JK

F(B

ankr

.D.

Del

.)

Vol

unta

rype

titio

nsfil

edM

ay31

,201

0.

Stan

dard

Insu

-la

tions

,Inc

.N

o.86

-034

13-

1-11

(Ban

kr.

W.D

.Mo.

)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tan

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Oct

ober

26,1

992.

Inre

Stan

dard

Insu

latio

ns,I

nc.,

138

B.R

.947

(Ban

kr.W

.D.M

o.19

92).

Cha

rt3

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

36


Stat

eIn

sula

tion

Cor

p.N

o.11

-151

10-

MB

K(D

.N.J

.)Pe

titio

nfil

edFe

brua

ry23

,20

11.

On

Febr

uary

10,

2012

,th

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tre

com

men

ded

that

the

dist

rict

cour

ten

ter

anor

der

confi

rmin

gth

ese

cond

amen

ded

plan

.

Swan

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Co.

No.

01-1

1690

-JK

F(B

ankr

.D

.Del

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

May

30,

2003

and

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onJu

ly21

,200

3.

TH

Agr

icul

ture

&N

utri

tion,

LLC

No.

08-1

4692

-re

g(B

ankr

.S.

D.N

.Y.)

Pet

itio

nan

dpr

epac

kage

dC

hapt

er11

plan

filed

Nov

embe

r24

,200

8.Fi

rst

Am

ende

dPl

anco

nfirm

edby

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urt

onM

ay28

,20

09an

daf

firm

edby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Oct

ober

26,2

009.

Tho

rpe

Insu

la-

tion

Co.

No.

07-1

9271

-B

B(B

ankr

.C

.D.C

al.)

Petit

ion

filed

Oct

ober

15,2

007.

Join

tlyad

min

iste

red

with

the

bank

rupt

cyca

seof

Paci

ficIn

sula

tion

Co.

,w

hich

filed

aC

hapt

er11

peti

tion

onO

ctob

er31

,20

07.

Fift

ham

ende

dpl

anof

reor

gani

zati

onco

n-fir

med

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Febr

uary

1,20

10an

dby

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

Sept

embe

r21

,20

10.

Stay

pend

ing

appe

alde

nied

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onO

ctob

er20

,20

10,

byth

eN

inth

Cir

cuit

onO

ctob

er21

,20

10,

and

byJu

stic

eK

enne

dy,

asci

rcui

tjus

tice,

onO

ctob

er22

,201

0.Pl

anw

ente

ffec-

tive

Oct

ober

22,

2010

.O

nJa

nuar

y24

,20

12,

the

Nin

thC

ircu

itre

vers

edco

nfirm

atio

nan

dre

man

ded

for

ane

wco

nfirm

atio

nhe

arin

gin

bank

rupt

cyco

urt.

Con

tinen

talI

ns.C

o.v.

Tho

rpe

Insu

latio

nC

o.(I

nre

Tho

rpe

Insu

latio

nC

o.),

__F.

3d__

,201

2W

L25

5231

(9th

Cir

.Jan

.30,

2012

);M

otor

Veh

icle

Cas

.C

o.v.

Tho

rpeI

nsul

atio

nC

o.(I

nre

Tho

rpeI

nsul

atio

nC

o.),

__F.

3d__

,201

2W

L17

8998

(9th

Cir

.Jan

.24,

2012

);N

atio

nalF

ire

Ins.

Co.

ofH

artfo

rdv.

Tho

rpe

Insu

latio

nC

o.(I

nre

Tho

rpe

Insu

latio

nC

o.),

393

Fed.

App

x.46

7(9

thC

ir.

2010

);M

otor

Veh

icle

Cas

.C

o.v.

Tho

rpe

Insu

latio

nC

o.(I

nre

Tho

rpe

Insu

latio

nC

o.),

392

Fed.

App

x.54

9(9

thC

ir.2

010)

.See

Empl

oyer

sRe

ins.

Co.

v.Su

peri

orC

t.(T

horp

eIns

ulat

ion

Co.

),16

1C

al.A

pp.4

th90

6,74

Cal

.Rpt

r.3d

733

(200

8).

Tri

ple

AM

achi

neSh

op,

Inc.

No.

10-4

9354

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.C

al.)

Vol

unta

ryC

hapt

er7

petit

ion

filed

Aug

ust

16,2

010.

Uni

ted

Gils

onit

eLa

bora

tori

es

No.

5:11

-bk-

0203

2(B

ankr

.M

.D.P

a.)

Petit

ion

filed

Mar

ch23

,201

1.

Uni

ted

Stat

esLi

nes

No.

86-1

2240

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.)(jo

intly

adm

inis

tere

dw

ithM

cLea

nIn

dust

ries

,N

o.86

-122

38)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

May

16,

1989

.A

sbes

tosis

Cla

iman

tsv.

U.S

.Lin

esRe

orga

niza

tion

Tru

st(I

nre

Uni

ted

Stat

esLi

nes,

318

F.3d

432

(2d

Cir

.20

03),

aff’g

U.S

.Li

nes,

Inc.

v.U

.S.

Line

sRe

orga

niza

tion

Tru

st,26

2B

.R.

223

(S.D

.N.Y

.20

01);

Mar

itim

eA

sbes

tos

Lega

lClin

icv.

Uni

ted

Stat

esLi

nes,

Inc.

(In

reU

nite

dSt

ates

Line

s),2

16F.

3d22

8(2

dC

ir.2

000)

;In

reU

nite

dSt

ates

Line

s,19

7F.

3d63

1(2

dC

ir.1

999)

,re

v’g

Uni

ted

Stat

esLi

nes,

Inc.

v.A

mer

ican

S.S,

Ow

ners

Mut

.Pr

otec

tion

&In

dem

.Ass’

n,22

0B

.R.5

(S.D

.N.Y

.199

7),r

ev’g

Uni

ted

Stat

esLi

nes,

Inc.

v.A

mer

ican

S.S,

Ow

ners

Mut

.Pr

otec

tion

&In

dem

.A

ss’n,

169

B.R

.80

4

37


(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.1

994)

;U.S

.Lin

es,I

nc.v

.U.S

.Lin

esRe

orga

niza

tion

Tru

st,26

2B

.R.2

23(S

.D.N

.Y.2

001)

,aff’

d,31

8F.

3d43

2(2

dC

ir.2

003)

.

Uni

ted

Stat

esM

iner

alPr

oduc

ts

No.

01-0

2471

(Ban

kr.

D.D

el.)

Fift

ham

ende

dpl

anfil

edby

Cha

pter

11T

rust

eean

dA

CC

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Nov

em-

ber

30,

2005

;ch

anne

ling

inju

nctio

nis

sued

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

Dec

embe

r14

,200

5.

Inre

AC

andS

,Inc

.,20

11W

L48

0152

7,__

_B

.R._

__(B

ankr

.D.D

el.O

ct.

7,20

11)

(also

ente

red

inth

eA

rmstr

ong,

Com

busti

onEn

gine

erin

g,Fl

intk

ote,

Kai

ser

Alu

min

um,

Ow

ens

Cor

ning

,U

.S.

Min

eral

Prod

ucts,

USG

,W

.R.

Gra

ce,P

ittsb

urgh

Cor

ning

,NA

RCO

,and

Mid

-Val

ley

bank

rupt

cyca

ses)

.

UN

RIn

dust

ries

,In

c.

Nos

.82

B98

41-9

845,

82B

9847

,82

B98

49(B

ankr

.N

.D.I

ll.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

June

1,19

89.

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,20

F.3d

766

(7th

Cir

.199

4);I

nre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,98

6F.

2d20

7(7

thC

ir.

1993

);U

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.v.

Con

tinen

talC

as.

Co.

,94

2F.

2d11

01(7

thC

ir.1

991)

;In

reU

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.,7

36F.

2d11

36(7

thC

ir.1

984)

;In

reU

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.,7

25F.

2d11

11(7

thC

ir.,

1984

);In

reU

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.,2

24B

.R.6

64(B

ankr

.N.D

.Ill.

1998

);In

reU

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.,2

12B

.R.2

95(B

ankr

.N.D

.Ill.

1997

);U

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.v.

Bloo

min

g-to

nFa

ctor

yW

orke

rs,1

73B

.R.1

49(N

.D.I

ll.19

94);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,14

3B

.R.

506

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Il

l.19

92),

rev’

d,17

3B

.R.

149

(N.D

.Il

l.19

94);

UN

ARC

OBl

oom

ingt

onFa

ctor

yW

orke

rsv.

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,12

4B

.R.2

68(N

.D.I

ll.19

90);

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

v.A

mer

ican

Mut

.Lia

bilit

yIn

s.C

o.,

92B

.R.

319

(N.D

.Il

l.19

88);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,74

B.R

.14

6(N

.D.

Ill.

1987

);In

reU

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.,

72B

.R.

796

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Il

l.19

87);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,72

B.R

.789

(Ban

kr.N

.D.I

ll.19

87);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,71

B.R

.467

(Ban

kr.N

.D.I

ll.19

87);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,54

B.R

.270

(Ban

kr.N

.D.I

ll.19

85);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,54

B.R

.26

6(B

ankr

.N.D

.Ill.

1985

);In

reU

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.,5

4B

.R.2

63(B

ankr

.N

.D.

Ill.

1985

);In

reU

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.,

46B

.R.

671

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Il

l.19

85);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,46

B.R

.25

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Il

l.19

84);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,42

B.R

.99

(Ban

kr.N

.D.I

ll.19

84);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,42

B.R

.94

(Ban

kr.N

.D.I

ll.19

84);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,39

B.R

.19

0(B

ankr

.N.D

.Ill.

1984

);In

reU

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.,3

0B

.R.6

09(B

ankr

.N

.D.

Ill.

1983

);In

reU

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.,

30B

.R.

613

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Il

l.19

83);

Inre

UN

RIn

dus.,

Inc.

,29

B.R

.74

1(N

.D.

Ill.

1983

);In

reU

NR

Indu

s.,In

c.,

23B

.R.

144

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Il

l.19

82).

See

also

Rohn

Indu

s.,In

c.v.

Plat

inum

Equi

tyLL

C,8

87A

.2d

983

(Del

.Sup

er.2

005)

.

USG

Cor

p.N

o.01

-209

4(B

ankr

.D

.Del

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

bybo

thth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tand

the

dist

rict

cour

ton

June

15,2

006.

Inre

Ken

singt

onIn

t’lLt

d.,3

68F.

3d28

9(3

dC

ir.20

04)(

also

appl

icab

leto

the

Arm

stron

g,Fe

dera

l-Mog

ul,O

wen

sCor

ning

,and

W.R

.Gra

ceba

nkru

ptci

es);

Inre

Ken

singt

onIn

t’lLt

d.,3

53F.

3d21

1(3

dC

ir.20

03)

(also

appl

icab

leto

the

Arm

stron

g,Fe

dera

l-Mog

ul,O

wen

sCor

ning

,and

W.R

.Gra

ceba

nkru

ptci

es);

Inre

AC

andS

,Inc

.,20

11W

L48

0152

7,__

_B

.R._

__(B

ankr

.D.D

el.O

ct.7

,

Cha

rt3

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

38


2011

)(al

soen

tere

din

the

Arm

stron

g,C

ombu

stion

Engi

neer

ing,

Flin

tkot

e,K

aise

rA

lum

inum

,Ow

ens

Cor

ning

,U.S

.Min

eral

Prod

ucts,

USG

,W.R

.Gra

ce,P

itts-

burg

hC

orni

ng,N

ARC

O,a

ndM

id-V

alley

bank

rupt

cyca

ses)

;In

reU

SGC

orp.

,29

0B

.R.2

23(B

ankr

.D.D

el.2

003)

.

Ute

xIn

dust

ries

No.

04-3

4427

(Ban

kr.S

.D.

Tex

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tan

dth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onJu

ne16

,200

4.

Wal

lace

&G

ale

No.

85-4

0092

(Ban

kr.

D.M

d.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

July

27,

1998

and

affir

med

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onM

ay30

,20

02.

Jone

sv.L

iber

tyM

ut.I

ns.C

o.(I

nre

Wal

lace

&G

ale

Co.

),38

5F.

3d82

0(4

thC

ir.20

04),

aff’g

,Aet

naC

as.&

Sur.

Co.

v.W

alla

ce&

Gal

eCo.

(In

reW

alla

ce&

Gal

eCo.

),28

4B

.R.5

57(D

.Md.

2002

),re

cons

ider

ingA

etna

Cas

.&Su

r.C

o.v.

Wal

lace

&G

aleC

o.(I

nre

Wal

lace

&G

aleC

o.),

275

B.R

.223

(D.M

d.20

02);

Lega

lRe

pres

enta

tive

for

Futu

reC

laim

ants

v.A

etna

Cas

.&

Sur.

Co.

(In

reW

alla

ce&

Gal

eC

o.),

72F.

3d21

(4th

Cir.

1995

);A

etna

Cas

.&Su

r.C

o.v.

Wal

lace

&G

aleC

o.(I

nre

Wal

lace

&G

aleC

o.),

284

B.R

.560

(D.M

d.20

02).

See

also

Scap

aD

ryer

Fabr

ics,

Inc.

v.Sa

ville

,988

A.2

d10

59(M

d.A

pp.2

010)

.

Wat

erm

anSt

eam

ship

Cor

p.

No.

83-1

1732

(Ban

kr.

S.D

.N.Y

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

June

19,

1986

.In

reW

ater

man

S.S.

Cor

p.v.

Agu

iar,

141

B.R

.552

,556

(Ban

kr.S

.D.N

.Y.

1992

).

Wes

tern

Mac

arth

ur/

Wes

tern

Asb

esto

s

No.

02-4

6284

-86

(Ban

kr.

N.D

.Cal

.)

Plan

confi

rmed

byth

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

ton

Janu

ary

27,

2004

and

affir

med

byth

edi

stri

ctco

urt

onA

pril

16,2

004.

Renf

rew

v.H

artfo

rdA

cc.&

Inde

m.C

o.(I

nre

Wes

tern

Asb

esto

sCo.

),40

6Fe

d.A

ppx.

227

(9th

Cir

.20

10);

Renf

rew

v.H

artfo

rdA

cc.&

Inde

m.C

o.(I

nre

Wes

tern

Asb

esto

sC

o.),

416

B.R

.67

0(N

.D.

Cal

.20

09),

aff’d

,40

6Fe

d.A

ppx.

227

(9th

Cir

.20

10);

Inre

Wes

tern

Asb

esto

sC

o.,

313

B.R

.85

9(N

.D.

Cal

.20

04);

Inre

Wes

tern

Asb

esto

sC

o.,

318

B.R

.52

7(B

ankr

.N

.D.

Cal

.20

04);

Inre

Wes

tern

Asb

esto

sC

o.,

313

B.R

.83

2(B

ankr

.N

.D.

Cal

.20

03);

Inre

Wes

tern

Asb

esto

sC

o.,

313

B.R

.45

6(B

ankr

.N

.D.

Cal

.20

04).

See

also

Uni

ted

Stat

esFi

delit

y&

Gua

r.C

o.v.

Am

eric

anRe

-Ins

uran

ceC

o.,

__N

.Y.S

.2d

__,

2012

WL

1782

29(N

.Y.

App

.D

iv.

Jan.

24,

2012

);V

olks

wag

enof

Am

eric

a,In

c.v.

Supe

rior

Cou

rt,

139

Cal

.A

pp.4

th14

81(2

006)

.

W.R

.Gra

ceC

o.N

os.

01-1

139,

01-1

140

(Ban

kr.

D.D

el.)

On

Janu

ary

31,

2011

,th

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tis

sued

findi

ngs

offa

ct,

conc

lusi

ons

ofla

w,

am

emor

andu

mop

inio

n,an

da

reco

mm

enda

tion

that

the

dist

rict

cour

tco

nfirm

the

plan

and

issu

eth

eva

riou

sin

junc

tions

calle

dfo

rby

the

plan

.O

nFe

brua

ry15

,20

11,

the

bank

rupt

cyco

urti

ssue

dan

orde

rcla

rify

ing

itsJa

nuar

y31

orde

r,fin

ding

s,an

dco

nclu

sion

s.O

nM

arch

4,th

eba

nkru

ptcy

cour

tis

sued

anor

der

that

gran

ted

inpa

rt

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

v.C

haka

rian

(In

reW

.R.G

race

&C

o.),

591

F.3d

164

(3d

Cir

.200

9);I

nre

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

,316

Fed.

App

x.13

4(3

dC

ir.2

009)

;In

reK

ensin

gton

Int’l

Ltd.

,368

F.3d

289

(3d

Cir

.200

4)(a

lsoap

plic

able

toth

eA

rmstr

ong,

Fede

ral-M

ogul

,O

wen

sC

orni

ng,

and

USG

Cor

p.ba

nkru

ptci

es);

Ger

ard

v.W

.R.G

race

&C

o.(I

nre

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

),11

5Fe

d.A

ppx.

565

(3d

Cir

.20

04);

Inre

Ken

singt

onIn

t’lLt

d.,

353

F.3d

211

(3d

Cir

.20

03)

(also

appl

icab

leto

the

Arm

stron

g,Fe

dera

l-Mog

ul,O

wen

sCor

ning

,and

USG

Cor

p.ba

nkru

ptci

es);

Inre

W.R

.G

race

&C

o.,

__B

.R.

__,

2012

WL

39


and

deni

edin

part

am

otio

nfo

rrec

onsi

dera

tion

ofth

eJa

nuar

y31

orde

ran

dop

inio

n.

On

Janu

ary

30,

2012

,th

edi

stri

ctco

urt

issu

edan

orde

rco

nfirm

ing

the

plan

.

3108

15(D

.Del

.Jan

.30,

2012

);St

ate

ofC

alifo

rnia

Dep

’tof

Gen

’lSv

cs.v

.W

.R.G

race

&C

o.(I

nre

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

),41

8B

.R.5

11(D

.Del

.200

9);

Stat

eof

New

Jers

eyv.

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

(In

reW

.R.G

race

&C

o.),

412

B.R

.65

7(D

.Del

.200

9);I

nre

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

,398

B.R

.368

(D.D

el.2

008)

;In

reA

Can

dS,

Inc.

,20

11W

L48

0152

7,__

_B

.R.

___

(Ban

kr.

D.

Del

.O

ct.

7,20

11)

(also

ente

red

inth

eA

rmstr

ong,

Com

busti

onEn

gine

erin

g,Fl

intk

ote,

Kai

ser

Alu

min

um,

Ow

ens

Cor

ning

,U

.S.M

iner

alPr

oduc

ts,U

SG,

W.R

.G

race

,Pi

ttsb

urgh

Cor

ning

,N

ARC

O,

and

Mid

-Val

ley

bank

rupt

cyca

ses)

;In

reW

.R.

Gra

ce&

Co.

,44

6B

.R.

96(B

ankr

.D

.D

el.

2011

),af

f’d,

___

B.R

.__

,20

12W

L31

0815

(D.

Del

.Ja

n.30

,20

12);

Inre

W.R

.G

race

&C

o.,

403

B.R

.31

7(B

ankr

.D

.D

el.

2009

);In

reW

.R.

Gra

ce&

Co.

,397

B.R

.701

(Ban

kr.D

.Del

.200

8),r

ev’d

,Sta

teof

Cal

iforn

iaD

ep’t

ofG

en’l

Svcs

.v.W

.R.G

race

&C

o.(I

nre

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

),41

8B

.R.

511

(D.D

el.2

009)

;In

reW

.R.G

race

&C

o.,3

89B

.R.3

73(B

ankr

.D.D

el.

2008

);W

.R.G

race

&C

o.v.

Cha

kari

an(I

nre

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

),38

6B

.R.

17(B

ankr

.D

.D

el.

2008

);W

.R.

Gra

ce&

Co.

v.C

ampb

ell

(In

reW

.R.

Gra

ce&

Co.

),38

4B

.R.

678

(Ban

kr.

D.

Del

.20

08),

aff’d

sub

nom

.St

ate

ofN

ewJe

rsey

v.W

.R.G

race

&C

o.(I

nre

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

),41

2B

.R.6

57(D

.Del

.200

9);W

.R.G

race

&C

o.v.

Cha

kari

an(I

nre

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

),38

4B

.R.6

70(B

ankr

.D.D

el.2

008)

;In

reW

.R.G

race

&C

o.,3

66B

.R.3

02(B

ankr

.D

.D

el.

2007

),af

f’d,

316

Fed.

App

x.13

4(3

dC

ir.

2009

);W

.R.

Gra

ce&

Co.

v.C

haka

rian

(In

reW

.R.G

race

&C

o.),

366

B.R

.295

(Ban

kr.

D.

Del

.20

07),

aff’d

,20

08W

L35

2245

3(D

.D

el.

Aug

.12

,20

08),

aff’d

,59

1F.

3d16

4(3

dC

ir.

2009

);In

reW

.R.

Gra

ce&

Co.

,35

5B

.R.

462

(Ban

kr.

D.

Del

.20

06);

Inre

W.R

.G

race

&C

o.,

346

B.R

.67

2(B

ankr

.D

.Del

.200

6);W

.R.G

race

&C

o.v.

Cha

kari

an(I

nre

W.R

.Gra

ce&

Co.

),31

5B

.R.3

53(B

ankr

.D.D

el.2

004)

;Offi

cial

Com

m.O

fAsb

esto

sPer

sona

lIn

jury

Cla

iman

tsv.

Seal

edA

irC

orp.

(In

reW

.R.G

race

&C

o.),

281

B.R

.852

(Ban

kr.D

.Del

.200

2).S

eeal

soW

.R.G

race

&C

o.-C

onn.

v.Z

otos

Int’l

,Inc

.,55

9F.

3d85

(2d

Cir

.200

9);U

.S.v

.W.R

.Gra

ce,5

26F.

3d49

9(9

thC

ir.

2008

);U

.S.v

.W.R

.Gra

ce,4

55F.

Supp

.2d

1113

(D.M

ont.

2006

),re

v’d,

504

F.3d

745,

755

(9th

Cir

.20

07);

U.S

.v.W

.R.G

race

,280

F.Su

pp.2

d11

49(D

.Mon

t.20

03),

aff’d

,429

F.3d

1224

(9th

Cir

.200

5),c

ert.

deni

ed,

127

S.C

t.37

9(2

006)

;TIG

Ins.

Co.

v.Sm

olke

r,26

4B

.R.6

61(B

ankr

.C.D

.C

al.2

001)

.

Cha

rt3

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pany

Cas

eN

o.&

Cou

rtP

lan

Stat

usP

ublis

hed

Dec

isio

ns

40


Endnotes

1. See Plevin, et al., Where Are They Now? A History OfThe Companies That Have Sought Bankruptcy Protec-tion Due To Asbestos Claims, Mealey’s AsbestosBankruptcy Report, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Aug. 2001); Ple-vin, et al., Where Are They Now?, Part Two: A Con-tinuing History Of The Companies That Have SoughtBankruptcy Protection Due To Asbestos Claims, Mea-ley’s Litigation Report: Asbestos, Vol. 17, No. 20(Nov. 2002); Plevin, et al., Where Are They Now?,Part Three: A Continuing History Of The CompaniesThat Have Sought Bankruptcy Protection Due ToAsbestos Claims, Mealey’s Asbestos BankruptcyReport, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Nov. 2005); Plevin, et al.,Where Are They Now?, Part Four: A ContinuingHistory Of The Companies That Have Sought Bank-ruptcy Protection Due To Asbestos Claims, Mealey’sAsbestos Bankruptcy Report, Vol. 6, No. 7(Feb. 2007); Plevin, et al., Where Are They Now?,Part Five: An Update on Developments In Asbestos-Related Bankruptcy Cases, Mealey’s Asbestos Bank-ruptcy Report, Vol. 8, No. 8 (March 2009).

2. Corrections are welcome. Please send any correc-tions or comments to [email protected] [email protected].

3. See Second Amended Disclosure Statement for theChapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Plant Insula-tion Company, Dkt. No. 1157, In re Plant Insula-tion Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. May 2,2011), p. 6.

4. See id. at p. 7.

5. See id. at p. 9.

6. Id.; Second Amended Plan of Reorganization ofPlant Insulation Company, Dkt. No. 1155, In rePlant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. May 2, 2011).

Regardless of the official name of the committeerepresenting the interests of asbestos claimants in aparticular case, which name varies from case to case,in this article we will refer to such committees by thegeneric abbreviation ‘‘ACC,’’ for ‘‘asbestos claimants’committee.’’ ‘‘FCR’’ refers to the future claimants’representative in each case.

7. Id., § 5.6.2 and Plan Exh. E at 1.

8. Second Amended Disclosure Statement for theChapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Plant Insula-tion Company, Dkt. No. 1157, In re Plant Insula-tion Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. May 2,2011), p. 38.

9. Id. at 37-38.

10. See Certain Insurers’ Motion for Summary Judg-ment (Contribution Issues), Dkt. No. 1216, In rePlant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. June 14, 2011).

11. See Order re Scope of Confirmation Hearing, Dkt.No. 1368, In re Plant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347(Bankr. N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011).

12. See First Amendment to Second Amended Plan ofReorganization of Plant Insulation Company, Dkt.No. 1391, In re Plant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347(Bankr. N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011).

13. See Certain Insurers’ Motion for Summary Judg-ment that the Second Amended Plan, as Amended,is not Confirmable, Dkt. No. 1434, In re PlantInsulation Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.Sept. 8, 2011).

14. See Transcript of October 11, 2011 Hearing at 6:8-12:14, In re Plant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347(Bankr. N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011).

15. See Third Amendment to Second Amended Plan ofReorganization of Plant Insulation Company, Dkt.No. 1519, In re Plant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347(Bankr. N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2011); Order re Moot-ness of Certain Insurers’ Motion for Summary Judg-ment that the Plan, as Amended, is not Confirmable,Dkt. No. 1616, In re Plant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2011).

16. See Order re Mootness of Certain Insurers’ Motionfor Summary Judgment that the Plan, as Amended,is not Confirmable at 2:14-15, Dkt. No. 1616, In rePlant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. Nov. 4, 2011); Transcript of October 19, 2011Hearing at 11:24-12:1, In re Plant Insulation Co.,No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011).

41


17. See Certain Insurers’ Objections to the SecondAmended Plan of Reorganization of Plant InsulationCompany, as Amended, Dkt. No. 1397, In re PlantInsulation Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.Aug. 19, 2011); Insurers’ Brief in Support of Objec-tions to the Second Amended Plan of Reorganizationof Plant Insulation Company. Dkt. No. 1742, In rePlant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2011).

18. See Voluntary Petition, Dkt. No. 1, In re MotorsLiquidation Co., No. 09-50026 (REG) (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2009).

19. See Disclosure Statement for Debtors’ AmendedJoint Chapter 11 Plan, Dkt. No. 8023, In re MotorsLiquidation Co., No. 09-50026 (REG) (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2010), pp. 14-17.

20. Id. at 19.

21. See Stipulation and Order Fixing Asbestos TrustClaim and Resolving Debtors’ Estimation Motion,Dkt. No. 9216, In re Motors Liquidation Co., No.09-50026 (REG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2011).

22. See Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee of AsbestosPersonal Injury Claimants for an Order (I) Appoint-ing a Legal Representative for Future Asbestos Per-sonal Injury Claimants and (II) Directing the UnitedStates Trustee to Appoint an Official Committee ofAsbestos Personal Injury Claimants, Dkt. No. 478,In re Motors Liquidation Co., No. 09-50026 (REG)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2009).

23. See Order Pursuant to Sections 105 and 1109 of theBankruptcy Code Appointing Dean M. Trafelet asLegal Representative for Future Asbestos PersonalInjury Claims, Dkt. No. 5459, In re Motors Liqui-dation Co., No. 09-50026 (REG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.Apr. 8, 2010).

24. See Appointment of Committee of Unsecured Cred-itors Holding Asbestos Related Claims, Dkt. No.5206, In re Motors Liquidation Co., No. 09-50026 (REG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2010).

25. See Debtors’ Joint Chapter 11 Plan, Dkt. No. 6829,In re Motors Liquidation Co., No. 09-50026 (REG)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010).

26. See Objection of the Legal Representative for FutureAsbestos Claimants to the Disclosure Statement forDebtors’ Joint Chapter 11 Plan, Dkt. No. 7326, Inre Motors Liquidation Co., No. 09-50026 (REG)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010).

27. See Debtors’ Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan, Dkt.No. 815, In re Motors Liquidation Co., No. 09-50026 (REG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2010); Dis-closure Statement for Debtors’ Amended JointChapter 11 Plan, Dkt. No. 8023, In re MotorsLiquidation Co., No. 09-50026 (REG) (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2010).

28. See Stipulation and Order Fixing Asbestos TrustClaim and Resolving Debtors’ Estimation Motion,Dkt. No. 9216, In re Motors Liquidation Co., No.09-50026 (REG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2011).

29. Id.

30. Id.

31. See Debtor’s List of Creditors Holding 20 LargestUnsecured Claims (as of December 15, 2009), Dkt.No. 1, In re Durabla Mfg. Co., No. 09-14415-MFW (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 15, 2009).

32. See Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Dkt. No.1, Durabla Canada, Ltd. v. Durabla Mfg. Co., No.10-50005-MFW (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 7, 2010).

33. See Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of BankruptcyProcedure 1015(b) and 105(a) Directing Joint Admin-istration, Dkt. No. 284, In re Durabla Mfg. Co., No.09-14415-MFW (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 12, 2010).

34. See Motion of the Shein Plaintiffs to Dismiss BadFaith Filings of Durabla Manufacturing Co. pur-suant to 11 U.S.C. § 1125(b), Dkt. No. 136, In reDurabla Mfg. Co., No. 09-14415-MFW (Bankr.D. Del. May 18, 2010).

35. See Debtor’s Opposition to Motion of the SheinPlaintiffs to Dismiss Case, Dkt. No. 155, In re Dur-abla Mfg. Co., No. 09-14415-MFW (Bankr. D.Del. June 9, 2010).

36. See Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Debtor’sChapter 11 Case, Dkt. No. 250, In re Durabla

42


Mfg. Co., No. 09-14415-MFW (Bankr. D. Del.Oct. 6, 2010).

37. See Motion of the Shein Plaintiffs Under Fed. R.Bankr. P. 9023 and 9024 for Reconsideration ofthe Order Denying their Motion to Dismiss theBad Faith Chapter 11 Filing of Durabla Manufac-turing Co., Dkt. No. 262, In re Durabla Mfg. Co.,No. 09-14415-MFW (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 20,2010).

38. Second Amended Plan of Reorganization for Dura-bla Manufacturing Company and Durabla Canada,Ltd., Dkt. No. 609, In re Durabla Mfg. Co., No.09-14415-MFW (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 21, 2011);Second Amended Disclosure Statement, Dkt. No.610, In re Durabla Mfg. Co., No. 09-14415-MFW (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 21, 2011).

39. Debtors’ Motion for an Order: (I) ConditionallyApproving Supplement to Second Amended Disclo-sure Statement, (II) Approving the Form PermittingCreditors to Change Their Votes on the ProposedModified Plan, (III) Fixing the Time for Creditors toChange Their Votes on the Proposed Modified Plan,(IV) Fixing the Time for Creditors to File Objections toFinal Approval of the Supplement and to the Confir-mation of the Proposed Modified Plan, and (V) Con-tinuing the Confirmation Hearing to a New Date, Dkt.No. 672, In re Durabla Mfg. Co., No. 09-14415-MFW (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 14, 2011), p. 5.

40. See Motion of the Debtors for an Order Directingthe Joint Administration of Their Chapter 11 Cases,Dkt. No. 3, In re Specialty Prods. Holding Corp.,No. 10-11780-JKF (Bankr. D. Del. May 31, 2010).

41. See Order Directing the Joint Administration ofDebtors’ Chapter 11 Cases, Dkt. No. 31, In re Spe-cialty Prods. Holding Corp., No. 10-11780-JKF(Bankr. D. Del. June 2, 2010).

42. See Complaint of the Debtors Specialty ProductsHolding Corp. and Bondex International, Inc. forInjunctive and Declaratory Relief Extending andApplying the Automatic Stay to Certain Non-Debtor Affiliates, Dkt. No. 9, In re SpecialtyProds. Holding Corp., No. 10-11780-JKF (Bankr.D. Del. May 31, 2010).

43. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in PartDebtors’ Motion for an Order Directing Submissionof Information by Current Asbestos Claimants, Dkt.No. 1466, In re Specialty Prods. Holding Corp., No.10-11780-JKF (Bankr. D. Del. July 20, 2011).

44. Id. at Exhibit A.

45. See Modified Case Management Order for Estima-tion of Debtors’ Asbestos Personal Injury Liability,Dkt. No. 1793, In re Specialty Prods. Hold-ing Corp., No. 10-11780-JKF (Bankr. D. Del.Nov. 2, 2011), } 13.

46. See Motion of the Official Committee of AsbestosPersonal Injury Claimants and the Future Clai-mants’ Representative for Entry of an Order Grant-ing Leave, Standing and Authority to ProsecuteClaims on Behalf of the Debtors’ Estates, Dkt. No.1799, In re Specialty Prods. Holding Corp., No. 10-11780-JKF (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 14, 2011).

47. Id. at } 17.

48. Id. at } 22.

49. RPM International Inc.’s Opposition to Motion ofthe Official Committee of Asbestos Personal InjuryClaimants and the Future Claimants’ Representativefor Entry of an Order Granting Leave, Standing andAuthority to Prosecute Claims on Behalf of theDebtors’ Estates, Dkt. No. 1880, In re SpecialtyProds. Holding Corp., No. 10-11780-JKF (Bankr.D. Del. Dec. 5, 2011); Debtors’ Objection to Motionof the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal InjuryClaimants and the Future Claimants’ Representativefor Entry of an Order Granting Leave, Standing andAuthority to Prosecute Claims on Behalf of the Debt-ors’ Estates, Dkt. No. 1881, In re Specialty Prods.Holding Corp., No. 10-11780-JKF (Bankr. D. Del.Dec. 5, 2011).

50. Disclosure Statement for Debtors’ Joint Plan ofReorganization, Dkt. No. 1666, In re Garlock Seal-ing Technologies LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr.W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2011), §§ 2.1, 2.2.

51. See Voluntary Petition of Garlock Sealing Technol-ogies LLC, Dkt. No. 1, In re Garlock Sealing

43


Technologies LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr.W.D.N.C. June 5, 2010).

52. See Affidavit of Donald G. Pomeroy, II in Support ofFirst Day Relief, Dkt. No. 3, In re Garlock Seal-ing Technologies LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr.W.D.N.C. June 5, 2010).

53. See Debtors’ Motion for (A) Establishment of Asbes-tos Claims Bar Date, (B) Approval of Asbestos Proofof Claim Form, (C) Approval of Form and Mannerof Notice, (D) Estimation of Asbestos Claims, and(E) Approval of Initial Case Management Schedule,Dkt. No. 461, In re Garlock Sealing TechnologiesLLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. August 31,2010).

54. Id. at } 23.

55. Id. at } 29.

56. See Memorandum of the Official Committee of Asbes-tos Personal Injury Claimants: (1) In Opposition tothe Debtors’ Motion for (A) Establishment of AsbestosClaims Bar Date, (B) Approval of Asbestos Proof ofClaim Form, (C) Approval of Form and Manner ofNotice, (D) Estimation of Asbestos Claims, and (E)Approval of Initial Case Management Schedule; and(2) In Further Support of Its Motion for Entry of aScheduling Order for Plan Formulation Purposes,Dkt. No. 548, In re Garlock Sealing TechnologiesLLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Sept. 24,2010).

57. See Order on Motion of the Official Committee ofAsbestos Personal Injury Claimants for Entry ofScheduling Order and Debtors’ Motion for Estab-lishment of Asbestos Claims Bar Date, Etc., Dkt.No. 853, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 2010).

58. See Renewal of and Second Amendment to Debtors’Motion for (A) Establishment of Asbestos ClaimsBar Date, (B) Approval of Asbestos Proof of ClaimForm, (C) Approval of Form and Manner of Notice,(D) Estimation of Asbestos Claims, and (E)Approval of Initial Case Management Schedule,Dkt. No. 1310, In re Garlock Sealing TechnologiesLLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. May 3,2011).

59. See Order Denying the Second Amendment to Debt-ors’ Motion for (A) Establishment of Asbestos ClaimsBar Date, (B) Approval of Asbestos Proof of ClaimForm, (C) Approval of Form and Manner of Notice,(D) Estimation of Asbestos Claims, and (E) Approvalof Initial Case Management Schedule, Dkt. No. 1348,In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. May 19, 2011).

60. See Order Authorizing the Debtors to Issue Ques-tionnaire to Holders of Pending MesotheliomaClaims and Governing the Confidentiality of Infor-mation Provided in Responses, Dkt. No. 1390, In reGarlock Sealing Technologies LLC, No. 10-31607(Bankr. W.D.N.C. June 21, 2011).

61. See Debtors’ Motion for Estimation of AsbestosClaims under § 502(c) and for Entry of Case Man-agement Order for Estimation of MesotheliomaClaims, Dkt. No. 1683, In re Garlock Sealing Tech-nologies LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C.Dec. 2, 2011).

62. See Motion for Questionnaire Claimant Bar Date, Dkt.No. 1684, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Dec. 2, 2011) (only43% of questionnaire claimants responded).

63. See Motion of the Debtors for an Order CompellingMesothelioma Claimants to Comply with thisCourt’s Questionnaire Order and Overruling Objec-tions to the Questionnaire, Dkt. No. 1745, In reGarlock Sealing Technologies LLC, No. 10-31607(Bankr. W.D.N.C. Dec. 30, 2011).

64. See Disclosure Statement for Debtors’ Joint Plan ofReorganization, Dkt. No. 1666, In re Garlock Seal-ing Technologies LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr.W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2011); Debtors’ Joint Plan ofReorganization, Dkt. No. 1664, In re Garlock Seal-ing Technologies LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr.W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2011).

65. See Debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization, Dkt. No.1664, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, No.10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2011),§ 7.3.2.

66. Id. at §§ 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6.

44


67. Id. § 8.2.

68. See First Amended Plan of Reorganization of LeslieControls, Inc. under Chapter 11 of the BankruptcyCode, Dkt. No. 172, In re Leslie Controls, Inc., No.10-12199 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 20, 2010); FirstAmended Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Section1125 of the Bankruptcy Code with Respect to FirstAmended Plan of Reorganization of Leslie Controls,Inc. under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code,Dkt. No. 173, In re Leslie Controls, Inc., No. 10-12199 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 20, 2010).

69. First Amended Disclosure Statement Pursuant toSection 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code with Respectto First Amended Plan of Reorganization of LeslieControls, Inc. under Chapter 11 of the BankruptcyCode, Dkt. No. 173, In re Leslie Controls, Inc., No.10-12199 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 20, 2010), p. 2.

70. See, e.g., Century Indemnity Company’s Objectionto Confirmation of the First Amended Plan, Dkt.No. 270, In re Leslie Controls, Inc., No. 10-12199(Bankr. D. Del. Sep. 27, 2010).

71. See Century Indemnity Company’s Statement ofIssues on Appeal (Appointment of Future ClaimsRepresentative and the FCR’s Claims EvaluationConsultants), In re Leslie Controls, Inc., No. 10-12199 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 19, 2010).

72. See Protective Order Governing the Production ofPrivileged Documents, Dkt. No. 275, In re LeslieControls, Inc., No. 10-12199 (Bankr. D. Del.Sept. 28, 2010).

73. See Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and OrderConfirming the First Amended Plan of Reorganiza-tion of Leslie Controls, Inc. under Chapter 11 ofthe Bankruptcy Code., Dkt. No. 382, In re LeslieControls, Inc., No. 10-12199 (Bankr. D. Del.Oct. 28, 2010).

74. Id.

75. See Consent Order Remanding Outstanding Appealsand Dismissing Motion of Debtor for Order Affirm-ing the Bankruptcy Court’s Order Confirming theFirst Amended Plan of Reorganization of Leslie

Controls, Inc., Dkt. No. 507, In re Leslie Controls,Inc., No. 10-12199 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 18, 2011).

76. See Motion for Order Granting Relief from Auto-matic Stay; Memorandum of Points and Authorities,Dkt. No. 5, In re Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., No.10-49354 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2010); Mem-orandum of Points and Authorities in Support ofMotion for Relief from Stay of David Palomares,Dkt. No. 12, In re Triple A Machine Shop, Inc.,No. 10-49354 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2010);Notice of Joinder in Brayton Purcell’s Motion forOrder Granting Relief from Automatic Stay ofWaters Kraus & Paul on behalf of Certain AsbestosClaimants, Dkt. No. 14, In re Triple A MachineShop, Inc., No. 10-49354 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.Sept. 22, 2010); Notice of Joinder and Joinder inBrayton Purcell’s Motion from Order GrantingRelief from Automatic Stay of Creditor AidaSavelsky, Dkt. No. 25, In re Triple A MachineShop, Inc., No. 10-49354 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.Sept. 23, 2010).

77. See Response of Ad Hoc Committee re Motions forRelief from Stay, Dkt. No. 20, In re Triple AMachine Shop, Inc., No. 10-49354 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. Sept. 23, 2010).

78. See Order, Dkt. No. 39, In re Triple A MachineShop, Inc., No. 10-49354 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.Nov. 9, 2010).

79. Application to Compromise Controversies withDebtor’s Insurers and Landlord; and For Authorityto Abandon and Destroy Business Records of Debtor,Dkt. No. 56, In re Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., No.10-49354 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. July 26, 2011).

80. Ad Hoc Committee’s Objection to Proposed Aban-donment of Records and Request for Hearing, Dkt.No. 58, In re Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., No. 10-49354 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2011).

81. Order Authorizing Compromise of Controversieswith Debtor’s Insurers and Landlord; and Authoriz-ing Trustee to Abandon and Destroy BusinessRecords of Debtor, Dkt. No. 66, In re Triple AMachine Shop, Inc., No. 10-49354 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. Sept. 30, 2011).

45


82. Voluntary Petition, Dkt. No. 1, In re PulmosanSafety Equip. Corp., No. 10-16098 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2010).

83. The dissolution was suspended by the SupremeCourt of New York, Queens County, with respectto claimants whose first use of Pulmosan productspredated August 1, 1986. See Declaration of Mat-thew Scott in Connection with Chapter 7 Bank-ruptcy Case of Pulmosan Safety EquipmentCorporation, Dkt. No. 2, In re Pulmosan SafetyEquip. Corp., No. 10-16098 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.Nov. 15, 2010), p. 2 n. 2.

84. Id. at 2-3.

85. Id. at 5.

86. See Second Amended Disclosure Statement for Sec-ond Amended Plan of Reorganization of State Insu-lation Corporation, Dkt. No. 274, In re StateInsulation Corp., No. 11-15110 (MBK) (Bankr.D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2012).

87. Id. at 13.

88. Id.

89. Id. at 14.

90. See Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorgani-zation of State Insulation Corp., Dkt. No. 273, In reState Insulation Corp., No. 11-15110 (MBK)(Bankr. D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2012). Further modifica-tions to the Second Amended Plan were filed onFebruary 8, 2012. See Second Amended Plan, Dkt.No. 286, In re State Insulation Corp., No. 11-15110 (MBK) (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 8, 2012).

91. See id., § 5.2. and Exh. 1.

92. See Transmittal to the District Court of Report andRecommendation for Entry of: (A) Findings of Factand Conclusions of Law with respect to the FirstAmended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [sic]for State Insulation Corporation and (B) OrderAuthorizing Confirmation, Dkt. No. 291, In reState Insulation Corp., No. 11-15110 (MBK)(Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2012).

93. Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition, Dkt. No. 1, In reUnited Gilsonite Labs., No. 11-02032 (Bankr.M.D. Pa. March 23, 2011).

94. Declaration of Thomas White in Support of Chapter11 Petition and First-Day Motions, Dkt. No. 3, Inre United Gilsonite Labs., No. 11-02032 (Bankr.M.D. Pa. March 23, 2011), } 5.

95. Id. at } 9.

96. Id. at }} 9, 17.

97. Id. at }} 17-19.

98. See Voluntary Petition, Dkt. No. 1, In re The C.P.Hall Co., No. 11-26443 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 24,2011).

99. See, e.g., Debtor’s Motion for Extension of ExclusivePeriods for Filing a Plan and Obtaining Confirma-tion Thereof, Dkt. No. 27, In re The C.P. Hall Co.,No. 11-26443 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2011), } 2.

100. See Order Granting Debtor’s Motion for Extensionof Time to File a Plan and Disclosure Statement andfor Extension of Exclusive Periods for Filing a Planand Obtaining Confirmation, Dkt. No. 71, In reThe C.P. Hall Co., No. 11-26443 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. Feb. 15, 2012).

101. See Debtor’s Motion for Authorization to Enter intoSettlement with Integrity Estate, Dkt. No. 39, In reThe C.P. Hall Co., No. 11-26443 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.Jan. 5, 2012); Debtor’s Motion for Authorization toSell Integrity Claim to Primeshares and to Imple-ment Sale Procedures, Dkt. No. 42, In re TheC.P. Hall Co., No. 11-26443 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.Jan. 12, 2012).

102. See Objection of the Secured Judgment Creditors toDebtor’s Motion for Authorization to Sell IntegrityClaim to Primeshares and to Implement Sale Proce-dures [Docket No. 42], Dkt. No. 64, In re The C.P.Hall Co., No. 11-26443 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Feb. 10,2012).

103. See Motion of Columbia Casualty Company forEntry of Order Determining the Automatic Stay

46


does not Apply, or in the alternative, Granting Relieffrom Stay on a Limited Basis, Dkt. No. 48, In reThe C.P. Hall Co., No. 11-26443 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.Jan. 27, 2012).

104. Id.

105. See Order Confirming First Amended Plan of Reor-ganization of Christy Refractories Company, L.L.C.,Dated June 7, 2011, Dkt. No. 289, In re ChristyRefractories Co., No. 08-48541 (Bankr. E.D. Mo.July 13, 2011); Plan of Reorganization under Chap-ter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for The ChristyRefractories Company, L.L.C., Dated December 7,2010, Dkt. No. 207, In re Christy Refractories Co.,No. 08-48541 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Dec. 7, 2010);Disclosure Statement with Respect to the Plan ofReorganization of the Debtor The Christy Refrac-tories Company, L.L.C., dated December 7, 2010,Dkt. No. 208, In re Christy Refractories Co., No.08-48541 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Dec. 7, 2010).

106. See Notice of Entry of Confirmation Order and ofOccurrence of Effective Date, Dkt. No. 293, In reChristy Refractories Co., No. 08-48541 (Bankr.E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2011); Amended Order ClosingCase and Entry of Final Decree, Dkt. No. 319, In reChristy Refractories Co., No. 08-48541 (Bankr. E.D.Mo. Dec. 29, 2011).

107. See In re Congoleum Corp., 2009 WL 499262(Bankr. D.N.J. June 7, 2010).

108. See Order, Dkt. No. 003110307543, In re Congo-leum Corp., No. 10-3011 (3d Cir. Oct. 7, 2010).

109. See Opinion Regarding the Motion of First State Insur-ance Company and Twin City Fire Insurance Com-pany for Summary Judgment Denying Confirmationof the Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization underChapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code of the Debtors,The Official Asbestos Claimants’ Committee and TheOfficial Committee of Bondholders for CongoleumCorporation et al., Dated as of November 14, 2008,Dkt. No. 7218, In re Congoleum Corp., No. 03-51524 (KCF) (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2009).

110. See In re Congoleum Corp., 414 B.R. 44, 58-59(D.N.J. 2009).

111. See Order Confirming Fourth Amended Joint Plan ofReorganization under Chapter 11 of the BankruptcyCode of the Debtors, The Official Asbestos Claimants’Committee and The Official Committee of Bond-holders for Congoleum Corporation et al. and theFutures Representative Dated as of March 11, 2010(as Modified), Dkt. No. 8116, In re CongoleumCorp., No. 03-51524 (KCF) (Bankr. D.N.J. June 7,2010).

112. See Order, Dkt. No. 003110307543, In re Congo-leum Corp., No. 10-3011 (3d Cir. Oct. 7, 2010).

113. See In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 402 B.R. 625(D. Del. 2009).

114. Id. at 638.

115. See Notice of Appeal, Dkt. No. 49, In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., Nos. 08-0229 and 08-230 (D.Del. April 23, 2009).

116. See Order, Dkt. No. 003110242889, In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., Nos. 09-2230 and 09-2231 (3dCir. Aug. 6, 2010).

117. See Motion of the Federal-Mogul U.S. Asbestos Per-sonal Injury Trust Seeking Extension of the ThirdParty Injunction to Zurich Insurance Company Ltd.and Zurich International (Bermuda) Ltd. underConfirmed Plan, Dkt. No. 14675, In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., No. 01-10578 (JKF) (Bankr.D. Del. April 15, 2011); Order Granting Motionof the Federal-Mogul U.S. Asbestos Personal InjuryTrust Seeking Extension of the Third Party Injunctionto Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. and Zurich Inter-national (Bermuda) Ltd. under Confirmed Plan, Dkt.No. 582593653, In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc.,No. 01-10578 (Bankr. D. Del. June 6, 2011) (jointlyadministered by the district court and the bankruptcycourt).

118. See Order Partially Withdrawing the Reference of thePlan Confirmation Hearing Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 157(d) and Authorizing the Bankruptcy Judge toCo-Preside with the District Court Judge over thePlan Confirmation Hearing, Dkt. No. 1, In re G-IHoldings Inc., No. 09-05031-GEB (D.N.J. Sept. 29,2009), and Dkt. No. 9634, In re G-I Holdings, Inc.,No. 01-30135-RG (Bankr. D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2009).

47


119. See In re G-I Holdings, Inc., 420 B.R. 216, 225(Bankr. D.N.J. 2009).

120. See Notice of Appeal, Dkt. No. 9795, In re G-IHoldings, Inc., No. 01-30135-RG (Bankr. D.N.J.Nov. 13, 2009).

121. See Order, Dkt. No. 003110134885, In re G-IHoldings, Inc., No. 09-4296 (3d Cir. May 7, 2010).

122. See Order, Dkt. No. 003110760342, In re G-IHoldings, Inc., No. 09-4296 (3d Cir. Dec. 28,2011); Stipulation and Order pursuant to Bank-ruptcy Code Sections 502 and 505 AllowingClaim of Internal Revenue Service, Dkt. No.10539, In re G-I Holdings, Inc., No. 01-30135-RG (Bankr. D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2011).

123. See Notice of Appeal to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit, Dkt. No. 37, In reGlobal Indus. Techs., Inc., No. 07-1749 (W.D. Pa.Aug. 25, 2008).

124. See In re Global Indus. Techs., Inc., 384 Fed. Appx.178 (3d Cir. June 15, 2010).

125. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Global IndustrialTechnologies, Inc. (In re Global Indus. Techs.,Inc.), 645 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied,132 S. Ct. 551 (2011).

126. Id. at 204.

127. See Order Granting Motion to Compel Mediation,Dkt. No. 10049, In re Global Indus. Techs., Inc.,No. 02-21626 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. July 7, 2011).

128. See Report and Recommendation for Entry of: (A)Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law withrespect to the First Amended Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization for Hercules Chemical Company,Inc., and (B) Confirmation Order, Dkt. No. 813,In re Hercules Chem. Co., No. 08-27822-MS(Bankr. D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2009).

129. See Order Authorizing Confirmation of the FirstAmended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization forHercules Chemical Company, Inc., Dkt. No. 831,In re Hercules Chem. Co., No. 09 cv 5777 (DMC)(D.N.J. Jan. 6, 2010).

130. See In re Johns-Manville Corp., 440 B.R. 604, 606(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010) (‘‘Nearly three decades ago,the Johns-Manville Corporation . . . filed the instantchapter 11 cases before this Court. The same partiesthat were present thirty years ago are again beforethis Court in this long-standing saga. In addition,as the Supreme Court noted, ‘[a]lmost a quarter-century after the 1986 Orders were entered,’ ‘thesame judge who had issued the 1986 orders’ is stillpresiding today’’).

131. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 129 S. Ct. 2195,2200-01 (2009).

132. Id. at 2205 (‘‘On direct appeal of the 1986 Orders,anyone who objected was free to argue that theBankruptcy Court had exceeded its jurisdiction,and the District Court or Court of Appeals couldhave raised such concerns sua sponte. . . . But oncethe 1986 Orders became final on direct review(whether or not proper exercises of bankruptcycourt jurisdiction and power), they became res judi-cata to the parties and those in privity with them,not only as to every matter which was offered andreceived to sustain or defeat the claim or demand,but as to any other admissible matter which mighthave been offered for that purpose’’) (internal quota-tion marks omitted), quoting Nevada v. United States,463 U.S. 110, 130 (1983) (quoting Cromwell v.County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1877)).

133. Id. at 2207 (remanding to the Second Circuit).

134. See In re Johns-Manville Corp., 600 F.3d 135, 154(2d Cir. 2010) (‘‘because the 1986 Orders purport tobind Chubb’s in personam claims, the better due pro-cess analogy in terms of notice and representationprinciples is to class action settlements, not in rembankruptcy proceedings’’); id. at 156 (‘‘Because ofthe in personam manner in which the 1986 Ordershave been interpreted, the due process issues discussedin Stephenson and Amchem present grave representa-tion and notice problems with respect to Chubb’’).

135. Id. at 159.

136. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Chubb Indem. Co., 131S. Ct. 644 (2010).

137. See Motion of Statutory and Hawaii Direct ActionSettlement Counsel to Compel Payment of

48


Settlement Proceeds under Statutory and HawaiiDirect Action Settlement Agreements, Dkt. No.3931, In re Johns-Manville Corp., No. 82-B-11656 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2010); Motion ofCommon Law Settlement Counsel to Enforce Set-tlement Agreement and Compel Payment of Settle-ment Proceeds under Common Law SettlementAgreement, Dkt. No. 3932, In re Johns-ManvilleCorp., No. 82-B-11656 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3,2010).

138. See In re Johns-Manville Corp., 440 B.R. at 613.

139. Id. at 615 (‘‘The fact that the Second Circuit has heldthat Chubb ‘did not receive adequate notice of the1986 Orders’ and is therefore not bound by its termsdoes not affect the finality of the 2004 ClarifyingOrder’’).

140. Id. at 614.

141. See Final Judgment, Dkt. No. 3977, In re Johns-Manville Corp., No. 82-B-11656 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.Jan. 20, 2011).

142. In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 453 B.R. 570, 584(Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2011).

143. See id. at 587-89.

144. See id. at 589.

145. See id. at 590.

146. See id. at 594. The court also rejected a challenge tothe good faith of the plan, holding that just becausethe plan was not confirmable did not mean it was notfiled in good faith. Id. at 604-05. The court alsorejected an argument that the plan’s trust distribu-tion procedures were not proposed in good faith. Id.at 605-611.

147. See Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganiza-tion for Pittsburgh Corning Corporation DatedJanuary 29, 2009 Jointly Proposed by PittsburghCorning Corporation, the Official Committee ofAsbestos Creditors and the Future Claims Represen-tative, Dkt. No. 8459, In re Pittsburgh CorningCorp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Sept. 23,2011).

148. See Dkt. Nos. 8510, 8511, 8513, 8542, 8543, In rePittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr.W.D. Pa.).

149. See Notice of Debtor’s Proposed Plan AmendmentsDated November 29, 2011, Dkt. No. 8572, In rePittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr.W.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2011); Notice of Plan Propo-nents’ and Plan Supporters’ Proposed Plan Amend-ments Dated December 12, 2011, Dkt. No. 8586,In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876(Bankr. W.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2011); Notice of PlanProponents’ and Plan Supporters’ Proposed PlanAmendments Dated December 23, 2011, Dkt.No. 8606, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No.00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2011); Noticeof Debtor’s Proposed Plan Amendments DatedFebruary 13, 2012, Dkt. No. 8660, In re PittsburghCorning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.Feb. 13, 2012).

150. See Dkt. Nos. 8594, 8628, 8630, 8634, and 8667,In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876(Bankr. W.D. Pa.). See also Order Denying Motionto Continue/Reschedule The February 17, 2012,Omnibus Hearing And Setting Status ConferenceAnd Argument Date, Dkt. No. 8665, In re Pitts-burgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D.Pa. Feb. 15, 2012).

151. See In re Quigley Co., 473 B.R. 102 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2010).

152. Id. at 126 (the court stated further that ‘‘this is aQuigley bankruptcy in name only. Pfizer conceivedand executed the global strategy, including the resus-citation of the moribund Quigley and the filing ofthe chapter 11 case . . . . The Fourth Plan, like theplans that preceded it, is designed to free the PfizerProtected Parties from derivative liability, and onlyincidentally, to reorganize Quigley to the extentnecessary to confirm the plan’’).

153. Id. at 132.

154. Id. at 140.

155. Id. at 142.

156. See Motion of Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Victimsfor an Order Dismissing Quigley Company Inc.’s

49


Bankruptcy Case, Dkt. No. 2135, In re QuigleyCo., No. 04-15739 (SMB) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.Oct. 5, 2010); Notice of Motion and Memorandumof Law of the United States Trustee in Support ofMotion for an Order Dismissing this Case, Dkt. No.2188, In re Quigley Co., No. 04-15739 (SMB)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2010).

157. See Order Granting Motion Authorizing Quigley toEnter into Plan Support Agreement with Pfizer Inc.and the Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Victims, Dkt.No. 2269, In re Quigley Co., No. 04-15739 (SMB)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2011).

158. See Sixth Amended and Restated Disclosure State-ment with Respect to Quigley Company, Inc. FifthAmended and Restated Plan of Reorganizationunder Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt.No. 2266; Quigley Company, Inc. Fifth Amendedand Restated Plan of Reorganization under Chapter11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 2264, Inre Quigley Co., No. 04-15739 (SMB) (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2011).

159. See Notice of Adjournment of Matters Scheduledfor Hearing on August 4, 2011, Dkt. No. 2318,In re Quigley Co., No. 04-15739 (SMB) (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2011).

160. See In re Quigley Co., Inc., 449 B.R. 196 (S.D.N.Y.2011).

161. See Pfizer Inc.’s Memorandum in Support of itsMotion for Stay pending Appeal, Dkt. No. 43, Inre Quigley Co., Inc., No. 10-cv-01573 (RJH)(S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011); Memorandum Opinionand Order, Dkt. No. 49, In re Quigley Co., Inc.,No. 10-cv-01573 (RJH) (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2011)(granting stay with appellee’s consent).

162. See In re American Capital Equip., Inc., 405 B.R.415, 418 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2009).

163. Id.

164. Id. at 418-19 and 424 (noting that if the plan voidedinsurance coverage, then the plan would not befinancially viable).

165. Id. at 421-22 (noting that debtor and its insurers hadnever paid an asbestos claim for approximately 20years, and most asbestos claims asserted against thedebtor had been administratively dismissed pre-peti-tion by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Dis-trict of Pennsylvania).

166. Id. at 422.

167. See Skinner Engine Co. v. Allianz Global Risk U.S.Ins. Co., No. 09-0886, 2010 WL 1337222 (W.D.Pa. March 29, 2010).

168. See Order Confirming Fifth Amended Joint Plan ofReorganization of Thorpe Insulation Companyand Pacific Insulation Company dated December 27,2009, Dkt. No. 2611, In re Thorpe Insulation Co.,No. 2:07-19271-BB (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Feb. 1,2010).

169. See Order and Opinion Affirming Plan Confirmationand § 524(g) Injunction, Dkt. No. 86, In re ThorpeInsulation Co., No. CV 10-1493 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21,2010).

170. See Plan Proponents’ Motion to Dismiss Appeals asMoot, Dkt. No. 34-1, In re Thorpe Insulation Co.,No. 10-56543 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2011).

171. See Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe InsulationCo. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), __ F.3d __,2012 WL 178998 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012).

172. Id., 2012 WL 178998, at *7.

173. See Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Dkt.No. 78, Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insula-tion Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), No. 10-56543 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012).

174. See Order, Dkt. No. 80, Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v.Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe InsulationCo.), No. 10-56543 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2012).

175. Continental Ins. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In reThorpe Insulation Co.), __ F.3d __, 2012 WL255231 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2012).

176. Id., 2012 WL 255231, at *12.

50


177. See Notice of Appeal from Order Approving (1)Insurance Settlement with Fireman’s Fund Insur-ance Company and Chicago Insurance Companyand (2) the Sale of Insurance Policies Free andClear of Liens, Claims and Interests (Dkt. No.3019); and Findings of Fact and Conclusions ofLaw re Settlement Approval (Dkt. No. 3018) andNotice of Appeal from Order Granting Post-Remand Motion for Order Approving (1) InsuranceSettlement with Certain Insurance Companies nowknown as Westport Insurance Corporation andSwiss Re Companies; and (2) the Sale of InsurancePolicies Free and Clear of Liens, Claims and Interests(Dkt. No. 3016), filed by Motor Vehicle CasualtyCompany, Central National Insurance Company ofOmaha, and Century Indemnity Company, succes-sor to Cigna Specialty Insurance Company f/k/aCalifornia Union Insurance Company, Dkt. Nos.3048 and 3052, In re Thorpe Insulation Co., No.2:07-19271-BB (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2011).

178. See In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 2011 WL 1378537(C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) (dismissing appeal fromorder approving settlement between Thorpe andWestport Insurance Corporation and Swiss ReCompanies); Order Granting Appellee’s Motion toDismiss, Dkt. No. 23, In re Thorpe Insulation Co.,No. CV 11-604 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2011) (dismiss-ing appeal from order approving Thorpe’s settlementwith Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company); OrderGranting Motion to Dismiss Appeal, Dkt. No. 41,In re Thorpe Insulation Co., No. CV 11-03607(C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011) (dismissing appeal fromsubstantial contribution order).

179. See The Waters & Kraus Claimants’ (A) Applicationto Extend the Time to Interpose Full and Com-plete Objections to the Confirmation of the FirstAmended Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization ofT.H. Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C. under Chap-ter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (B) Initial Objectionand (C) Application for Continuance to Submit Fulland Complete Objections, Dkt. No. 453, In re T.H.Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C., No. 08-14692(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2009).

180. See In re T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C.,2009 WL 7193573 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 28,2009).

181. See Notice of Appeal, Dkt. No. 468, In re T.H.Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C., No. 08-14692(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009); Objection ofWaters & Kraus Claimants to Debtor’s Applicationfor District Court Affirmance of the BankruptcyCourt’s Confirmation of the First Amended Pre-packaged Plan of Reorganization of T.H. Agricul-ture & Nutrition, L.L.C. under Chapter 11 of theBankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 472, In re T.H. Agri-culture & Nutrition, L.L.C., No. 08-14692 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2009).

182. See Consensual Order Approving Plan Modifica-tions, Dkt. No. 527, In re T.H. Agriculture &Nutrition, L.L.C., No. 08-14692 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.Oct. 14, 2009).

183. See Order Regarding the Bankruptcy Court’s Con-firmation of the First Amended Prepackaged Plan ofReorganization of T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition,L.L.C. under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Codeas Modified, Dkt. No. 33, In re T.H. Agriculture &Nutrition, L.L.C., No. 1:09 cv 6432 (S.D.N.Y.Oct. 26, 2009).

184. See In re W.R. Grace & Co., No. 01-1139 (JKF),2011 WL 381942 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 31, 2011).

185. See In re W.R. Grace & Co., __ B.R. __, 2012 WL310815 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2012).

186. See Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe InsulationCo. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), __ F.3d __,2012 WL 178998, at *9 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012).

187. See id., 2012 WL 178998, at *10.

188. See id., 2012 WL 178998, at *16; Hartford Acc. &Indem. Co. v. Fitzpatrick (In re Global Indus.Techs., Inc.), 645 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2011), cert.denied, __ S. Ct. __ (Nov. 7, 2011).

189. See Davis & Plevin, ‘‘Rest of the Story: Lessons fromLeslie Controls,’’ American Bankruptcy InstituteJournal (June 2011).

190. See In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 453 B.R. 570,589, 605-11 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2011).

191. Artra 524(g) Asbestos Trust v. Fairmont Premier Ins.Co., 2011 WL 4684356, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30,

51


2011), citing UNR Indus., Inc. v. Continental Cas.Co., 942 F.2d 1101, 1105 (7th Cir. 1991).

192. Apart from its failure to give the ‘‘insurance neutral-ity’’ language the meaning urged by the insurers, theArtra 524(g) Asbestos Trust decision is also notablefor rejecting as ‘‘inapplicable’’ out-of-state law theruling in Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. HighlandsIns. Co., 135 Cal. App.4th 958, 38 Cal. Rptr.3d 716(2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 248 (2006), whichheld that insurers were obligated only to indemnifythe amounts actually paid by a § 524(g) trust, ratherthan the undiscounted ‘‘allowed liquidated value’’determined by the trust.

193. In re Quigley Co., Inc., 437 B.R. at 141 (‘‘a broadinterpretation [of § 524(g)] that imposes an ongoingbusiness requirement could transform the fundingrequirement into a feasibility test, duplicating therequirement imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(11)’’).

194. 140 Cong. Rec. S 4521-01, at S 4522-23 (Apr. 20,1994) (emphasis added).

195. 140 Cong. Rec. S 4521-01, at S 4523 (Apr. 20,1994) (emphasis added).

196. 140 Cong. Rec. S 4521-01, at S 4524 (Apr. 20,1994). See also In re Johns-Manville Corp., 36B.R. at 746 (shielding Manville from suits by futureasbestos claimants was essential in order to preventits liquidation and preserve ‘‘needed jobs and theproductivity emanating from an ongoing concern’’).

197. In re Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 391 F.3d 191, 248(3d Cir. 2004).

198. In re Western Asbestos Co., 313 B.R. 832, 854(Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2003).

199. See Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe InsulationCo. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), __ F.3d __,2012 WL 178998 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012).

200. In re Quigley Co., Inc., 437 B.R. at 114.

201. Id. at 141.

202. Id. at 143.

203. See Charles Bates and Charles Mullin, State Of TheAsbestos Litigation Environment – October 2008,Mealey’s Litigation Report: Asbestos, Vol. 23, No.19 (Nov. 2008), at 36 (reporting that $25.7 billionin hard assets is currently available to 35 confirmedasbestos personal injury trusts); Defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc. and Other Defendants’ Brief Relating toInterpretation of Chapter 33 as to ‘‘Bankrupt’’Responsible Third Parties, LEXISNEXIS File &Serve No. 21452970, In re: Asbestos Litigation,No. 2004-03964 (11th Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.,Tex., Sept. 11, 2008), at 7 (stating that nearly $40billion in assets is currently held by asbestos personalinjury trusts for the payment of claims).

204. See Defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc. and OtherDefendants’ Brief Relating to Interpretation ofChapter 33 as to ‘‘Bankrupt’’ Responsible Third Par-ties, LEXISNEXIS File & Serve No. 21452970, Inre: Asbestos Litigation, No. 2004-03964 (11th Dist.Ct., Harris Cty., Tex., Sept. 11, 2008), at Exh. W(listing payments available to mesothelioma clai-mants from confirmed asbestos personal injury trustsof up to $1 million per claim).

205. See, e.g., Shelley, et al., The Need For TransparencyBetween The Tort System And Section 524(g) Trusts,Norton J. Bankr. L. & Prac., Vol. 17 (Apr. 2008).

206. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 2011WL 5903453 at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2011) (grant-ing defendant’s motion to compel production ofclaims plaintiff submitted to asbestos bankruptcytrusts, but allowing redaction of settlement amountsand offers of compromise); Shepherd v. Pneumo-Abex, LLC, 2010 WL 3431663 at *2 (E.D. Pa.Aug. 30, 2010) (same); Drabczyk v. AmchemProds., Inc., Index No. 2005/1583 (N.Y. Supr.,Erie Cty., Jan. 18, 2008) (ordering disclosure ofproof of claim forms filed with bankruptcy trusts;such forms ‘‘may contain information concerningproduct identification, the claimant’s work historyand exposure to asbestos, causation and apportion-ment of fault . . .’’); Volkswagen of America, Inc. v.Superior Court, 139 Cal. App.4th 1481, 1493-96(2006) (holding most documents claimants sub-mitted to a § 524(g) bankruptcy trust in support ofits claim were discoverable in tort litigation); SeariverMaritime, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2006 WL2105431, at *2 (Cal. App. July 28, 2006) (factual

52


information on claim forms discoverable); Link v.Ahlstrom Pumps, LLC, No. 05-565305 (OhioCom. Pl., Cuyahoga Cty. Dec. 1, 2006) (documentsprovided to a trust ordered produced).

207. See, e.g., Master Case Management Order forAsbestos-Related Personal Injury Claims, In re:Asbestos Litigation, No. 0001 (Pa. Com. Pl., Phila-delphia Cty.), § III (requiring plaintiff to disclose‘‘information relating to Bankruptcy Trust Fil-ings’’); 2010 Case Management Order, Dkt. No.31124655, In re: Asbestos Personal Injury Litig.,No. 03-C-9600 (W. Va. Cir. Ct. Kanawha Cty.(May 14, 2010), § 22(A)(3) (requiring disclosure of,inter alia, ‘‘all trust claims and claims materials . . .

including but not limited to, work histories,depositions, and the testimony of the claimant andothers as well as medical documentation’’) and§ 22(E) (because ‘‘defendants will be entitled toset-offs or credits of the paid liquidated valueof trust claims,’’ the court may ‘‘require each clai-mant to disclose the total amount received or reason-ably expected to be received from the bankruptcyproceedings’’).

208. See, e.g., 2010 Case Management Order, Dkt. No.31124655, In re: Asbestos Personal Injury Litiga-tion, No. 03-C-9600 (W. Va. Cir. Ct. KanawhaCty. (May 14, 2010), § 22(A)(2) (requiring plaintiffto disclose ‘‘any and all existing claims that may existagainst asbestos trusts’’ and ‘‘when a claim was orwill be made’’) (emphasis added); Transcript of Pro-ceedings in consolidated pretrial hearing before Hon.Shirley Werner Kornreich, Index Nos. 1037729/07,105609/03, 105136/07, 107449/07, 104144/07,106808/07, 117395/06, 116617/06 (N.Y. Supr.,N.Y. Cty., Jan. 24, 2008) at 45-46, 51 (orderingcounsel to file any claims against any bankruptcytrust that they were going to file, and stating thatclaimants’ counsel’s delay in submitting claims tobankruptcy trusts was ‘‘gamesmanship’’ and thatthe court would ‘‘vacate any verdict’’ in favor of aplaintiff who filed a claim against a bankruptcy trustafter the verdict had been rendered).

209. See Motion of Debtors for an Order Pursuant toBankruptcy Rule 2004 Directing Production ofData by Claims Processing Facilities and AsbestosTrusts, Dkt. No. 601, In re Garlock Sealing

Technologies LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr.W.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2010).

210. See Order Quashing Debtors’ Notices of DepositionPursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) and Denying Motions toCompel, Dkt. No. 1187, In re Garlock SealingTechnologies LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr.W.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2011).

211. See Report of the Official Committee of AsbestosPersonal Injury Claimants on Debtors’ Motions toObtain Access to Rule 2019 Statements in OtherBankruptcies, Dkt. No. 1141, In re Garlock SealingTechnologies LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr.W.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 2011) (citing motions filed inIn re ACandS, Inc., No. 02-12687 (Bankr. D.Del.), In re Armstrong World Indus., Inc., No.00-4471 (Bankr. D. Del.), In re Combustion Engi-neering, Inc., No. 03-10495 (Bankr. D. Del.), In reThe Flintkote Co., No. 04-11300 (Bankr. D. Del.),In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., No. 02-10429(Bankr. D. Del.), In re Owens Corning, No. 00-3837 (Bankr. D. Del.), In re US Mineral Prods.Co., No. 01-2471 (Bankr. D. Del.), In re USGCorp., No. 01-2094 (Bankr. D. Del.), In re W.R.Grace & Co., No. 01-1139 (Bankr. D. Del.), In reMid-Valley, Inc., No. 03-35592 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.),In re North American Refractories Co., No. 02-20198 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.), and In re PittsburghCorning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.).

212. See id. at Exh. 1, }} 13-16, 24.

213. Id. at } 24.

214. In re ACandS, Inc., ___ B.R. ___, 2011 WL4801527, at *4 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 7, 2011).

215. See Motion of the Debtors for an Order, Pursuant toRule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Pro-cedure, Directing Production of Information byClaims Processing Facilities for Certain AsbestosPersonal Injury Trusts, Dkt. No. 436, In re SpecialtyProds. Holding Corp., No. 10-11780-JKF (Bankr.D. Del. Oct. 12, 2010); Motion of the Debtors foran Order, Pursuant to Rule 2004 of the FederalRules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Directing Produc-tion of Historic Claims Databases By Certain Asbes-tos Injury Trusts, Dkt. No. 559, In re Specialty

53


Prods. Holding Corp., No. 10-11780-JKF (Bankr.D. Del. Nov. 14, 2010).

216. See e.g., Motion of the Debtors for an Order,Pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules ofBankruptcy Procedure, Directing Production ofInformation by Claims Processing Facilities forCertain Asbestos Personal Injury Trusts, Dkt. No.436, In re Specialty Prods. Holding Corp., No.10-11780-JKF (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 12, 2010),}} 1, 2, 15.

217. See, e.g., Objections of NGC Bodily Injury Trust(Dkt. No. 486), Fuller-Austin Asbestos SettlementTrust (Dkt. No. 487), United States Mineral Pro-ducts Company Asbestos Personal Injury SettlementTrust (Dkt. No. 491), Future Claimants Represen-tative (Dkt. No. 493), Utex Industries, SuccessorTrust (Dkt. No. 495), Verus Claims Services (Dkt.No. 496), the Committee of Asbestos PersonalInjury Claimants (Dkt. Nos. 510, 517), Porter Hay-den Bodily Injury Trust (Dkt. No. 499), ResolutionManagement Corporation, Manville Personal InjurySettlement Trust and C.E. Thurston & Sons, Inc.Asbestos Trust (Dkt. No. 501), ABB Lummus Glo-bal Inc. 524(g) Asbestos PI Trust (Dkt. No. 502),the Combustion Engineering 524(g) Asbestos PITrust (Dkt. No. 504), Swan Asbestos & Silica Set-tlement Trust (Dkt. No. 506), Kaiser Aluminum &Chemical Corporation Asbestos Personal InjuryTrust (Dkt. No. 512), United States Gypsum Asbes-tos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, DII Industries,LLC Asbestos PI Trust, Babcock & Wilcox Com-pany Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust,Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust, ArmstrongWorld Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Set-tlement Trust, Federal-Mogul Asbestos PersonalInjury Trust, Owens Corning/Fibreboard AsbestosPersonal Injury Trust (Dkt. No. 513), DelawareClaims Processing Facilities (Dkt. No. 515),ACandS Asbestos Settlement Trust and Plibrico524(g) Asbestos Trust (Dkt. No. 516), In re Speci-alty Prods. Holding Corp., No. 10-11780-JKF(Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 29, 2010).

218. See Order Denying without Prejudice Motion of theDebtors for an Order, Pursuant to Rule 2004 of theFederal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, DirectingProduction of Historic Claims databases by CertainAsbestos Personal Injury Trusts, Dkt. No. 1546, Inre Specialty Prods. Holding Corp., No. 10-11780-

JKF (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 3, 2011); Order Denyingwithout Prejudice Motion of the Debtors for anOrder, Pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rulesof Bankruptcy Procedure, Directing Production ofInformation by Claims Processing Facilities for Cer-tain Asbestos Personal Injury Trusts, Dkt. No. 1547,In re Specialty Prods. Holding Corp., No. 10-11780-JKF (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 3, 2011).

219. See Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunc-tive Relief, Dkt. No. 1, In re ACandS, Inc., Adv. No.10-53721 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 28, 2010); VerifiedComplaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief,Dkt. No. 1, In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., Adv.No. 10-53719 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 28, 2010); Ver-ified Complaint for Declaratory and InjunctiveRelief, Dkt. No. 1, In re Owens Corning, Adv.No. 10-53720 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 28, 2010); Ver-ified Complaint for Declaratory and InjunctiveRelief, Dkt. No. 1, In re USG Corp., Adv. No.10-53712 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 28, 2010). Thecases were later consolidated in Adv. No. 10-53719, In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp. See e.g.,Order Consolidating Related Adversary Proceedings,Dkt. No. 16, In re ACandS, Inc., Adv. No. 10-53721 (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 21, 2010).

220. See e.g., Verified Complaint for Declaratory andInjunctive Relief, Dkt. No. 1, In re ACandS, Inc.,Adv. No. 10-53721 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 28, 2010),}} 34, 35.

221. See Specialty Products Holding Corp.’s Motion toDismiss Plaintiffs’ Original Verified Complaint, and,in the alternative, to Drop Specialty Products Hold-ing Corp. as a Misjoined Party, Dkt. No. 32, In reACandS, Inc., Adv. No. 10-53721 (Bankr. D. Del.Nov. 18, 2010); Memorandum in Support of Gar-lock’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 43, In reACandS, Inc., Adv. No. 10-53721 (Bankr. D. Del.Nov. 24, 2010).

222. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Hartford’sMotion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 30, In re ACandS,Inc., Adv. No. 10-53721 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 18,2010).

223. See Memorandum Opinion, Dkt. No. 79, In reACandS, Inc., Adv. No. 10-53721 (Bankr. D. Del.Feb. 22, 2011).

54


224. See Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s),607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010).

225. See Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.),Adv. No. 09-03356-SGJ (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jan. 18,2012); In re Chateaugay Corp., 2009 WL 367490(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2009).

226. See Flores v. Kmart Corp., 2012 WL 206617 (Cal.App. Jan. 25, 2012).

227. These issues were initially discussed in Where AreThey Now?, Part Five: An Update on DevelopmentsIn Asbestos-Related Bankruptcy Cases, Mealey’s Asbes-tos Bankruptcy Report, Vol. 8, No. 8 (March 2009).

228. See Certain Insurers’ Motion for Summary Judg-ment (Contribution Issues), Dkt. No. 1216, In rePlant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. June 14, 2011); Certain Insurers’ Motion forSummary Judgment that the Second Amended Plan,as Amended, is not Confirmable, Dkt. No. 1434, In

re Plant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. Sept. 8, 2011).

229. See Order re Mootness of Certain Insurers’ Motionfor Summary Judgment that the Plan, as Amended,is not Confirmable at 2:14-15, Dkt. No. 1616, In rePlant Insulation Co., No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. Nov. 4, 2011); Transcript of October 19, 2011Hearing at 62:22-63:3, In re Plant Insulation Co.,No. 09-31347 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011).

230. See Where Are They Now?, Part Five: An Update onDevelopments In Asbestos-Related Bankruptcy Cases,Mealey’s Asbestos Bankruptcy Report, Vol. 8, No.8 (March 2009).

231. See Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe InsulationCo. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), __ F.3d __,2012 WL 178998, at *15 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012).

232. See In re W.R. Grace & Co., __B.R. __, 2012 WL310815 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2012), at *89 & n.168. n

55


MEALEY’S: ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY REPORTedited by Emerson Heffner

The Report is produced monthly by

1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1655, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USATelephone: (215)564-1788 1-800-MEALEYS (1-800-632-5397)

Email: [email protected] site: http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys

ISSN 1537-2065