Crowell and Moring Where Are They Now, Part 8

MEALEYS
Asbestos Bankruptcy
Report
Where Are They Now, Part Eight: An Update On
Developments In Asbestos-Related Bankruptcy
Cases
by
Mark D. Plevin,
Tacie H. Yoon,
and
Leslie A. Davis
Crowell & Moring LLP
Washington, D.C.
and
Brendan V. Mullan,
Belinda Y. Liu,
and
Galen P. Sallomi
Crowell & Moring LLP
San Francisco, CA
A commentary article
reprinted from the
September 2016 issue of
Mealeys Asbestos
Bankruptcy Report
MEALEYS
Asbestos Bankruptcy Report
Vol. 16, #2 September 2016
Commentary
Where Are They Now, Part Eight: An Update On Developments In
Asbestos-Related Bankruptcy Cases
By
Mark D. Plevin,
Tacie H. Yoon,
Leslie A. Davis,
Brendan V. Mullan,
Belinda Y. Liu,
and
Galen P. Sallomi
[Editors Note: The authors are attorneys at Crowell &

Moring LLP, practicing in the bankruptcy, litigation,
and insurance coverage areas. They have represented
insurers in asbestos, silica, products liability, sexual
abuse, and other mass tort bankruptcy cases, including
many of the cases mentioned below, and in coverage cases
involving asbestos defendants. The views expressed herein
are the authors own, not necessarily those of their rm or
their clients. Any commentary or opinions do not reect
the opinions of Crowell & Moring LLP or LexisNexis,
Mealeys. Copyright # 2016 by Mark D. Plevin, Tacie
H. Yoon, Leslie A. Davis, Brendan V. Mullan, Belinda
Y. Liu, and Galen P. Sallomi. Responses are welcome.]
over the past two years. We also present updated versions of three charts: one listing asbestos bankruptcies in
chronological order; one providing the same information, with the debtors listed in alphabetical order; and a
third listing the case numbers of asbestos bankruptcies,
the status of the plans in those cases, and the published
decisions that have arisen from those cases. We keep
these charts updated in real time on our web site, accessible at www.crowell.com/asbestosbankruptcy, and
will continue to do so as a resource available to those
interested in this eld.2
Since 2001, we have been reporting in these pages on

the status of asbestos-related bankruptcy cases.1 In our
last report, published in July 2014, we observed that
the pace of asbestos-related bankruptcy lings had
slowed. This trend has continued, as only seven new
cases were led in the past two years. And most of
those cases have involved liquidating debtors who do
not seek to utilize the trust-injunction mechanism set
forth in Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Eagle, Inc. On September 22, 2015, Eagle led a

voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.3 Eagle sold
gaskets and installed insulation and insulation-related
products, which contained asbestos, until the late
1970s.4 It ceased all operations in 2006, and since
then has been managing its asbestos litigation and insurance rights.5 Eagle was rst sued for asbestos-related
injuries in 1985 and faces approximately 20,000 pending lawsuits for asbestos-related injuries.6 Eagle led for
bankruptcy to seek relief under 524(g).7
This article updates our last seven by noting the asbestos bankruptcies led since July 2014, summarizing
key developments in asbestos bankruptcies that were
pending when we last wrote, and discussing some of
the signicant themes we have observed in these cases
1.
Who Filed the Most Recent Asbestos

Bankruptcies?
Before ling its bankruptcy petition, Eagle was in

coverage litigation with several of its insurers.8 As a
result of pre-petition settlements between Eagle and
two of its insurers, Eagle established a Qualied Settlement Fund to hold settlement payments made by
the insurers, which would be used in part to fund a
524(g) trust.9
On October 7, 2015, Eagle led a motion under
105(a) to enjoin asbestos claimants from pursuing direct actions against the insurers with whom
Eagle had settled.10 The court denied the motion on
October 28, 2015.11
In May 2016, the Unsecured Creditors Committee
moved to retain Caplin & Drysdale as bankruptcy
counsel and Gilbert LLP as special insurance counsel.12
The court denied the motions to retain Caplin &
Drysdale and Gilbert, but allowed the committee
to retain local counsel.13 On July 5, 2016, the committee led a motion seeking to substitute Caplin &
Drysdale for local counsel.14 The U.S. Trustee and
several non-settled insurers objected to the retention
motions, arguing that there was little reason to hire a
national rm like Caplin & Drysdale at much higher
rates than local counsel.15 Eagle supported the committees motion, asserting that Caplin & Drysdales
exceptional expertise in asbestos-mass tort bankruptcies would enable the debtor to quickly be in
a position to le a proposed plan.16 On August 1,
2016, the court granted the motion to employ
Caplin & Drysdale in place of local counsel effective
July 27, 2016, at a capped hourly rate of $475,
although both the hourly rates and a request to
employ Caplin & Drysdale nunc pro tunc may be
revisited at a later date.17
On August 31, 2016, USF&G led a motion to
appoint a Chapter 11 trustee in place of Eagles management.18 USF&G argued that Eagles management
had engaged in repeated acts of dishonesty in the
administration of the case and had irreconcilable
conicts of interest with the estate and its creditors.19
On September 12, 2016, Pacic Employers Insurance
Co. led a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy on the
grounds that (1) it was led in bad faith, (2) there is a
substantial or continuing loss to the estate and no
reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation, and (3) Eagle
will not be able to conrm a plan.20 A hearing on both
motions is scheduled for September 22, 2016.21
On September 13, 2016, Eagle led a plan of reorganization seeking relief under 524(g).22
MEALEYS
Energy Future Holdings. On April 29, 2014, Energy

Future Holdings Company (EFHC) and 70 afliates led Chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware.23 EFHCs businesses include the largest generator, distributor, and
retail supplier of electricity in Texas.24 Although some
of the debtors were defendants in asbestos bankruptcy
cases, the bankruptcy ling was not driven by asbestos
liabilities, and the debtors did not seek relief under
524(g). Rather, the bankruptcy ling was intended
to enable EFHC and its afliates to reorganize and
restructure their $42 billion in outstanding debt.25
On August 8, 2014, attorneys representing asbestos
claimants appeared in the bankruptcy to oppose debtors motion to set a claims bar date.26 The claimants
counsel asserted that setting a bar date would be unfair
to future asbestos claimants because unless such future
claimants received adequate notice, their claims could
be cut off without constitutionally appropriate due
process.27 On August 18, 2014, the court set a claims
bar date, but excluded asbestos bodily injury claims
from the bar date.28 On October 27, 2014, an ofcial
creditors committee was appointed, which included
representatives of two asbestos claimants.29
On January 7, 2015, the court entered an order
authorizing the establishment of an asbestos claim
bar date, applicable to both manifested and unmanifested asbestos claims.30 The court held that attorneys
representing current asbestos claimants lacked standing to object to the setting of a bar date for unmanifested asbestos claims.31 The court then concluded
that unmanifested asbestos claims, which were prepetition claims due to the claimants pre-petition
exposure to asbestos, could be discharged, as long as
constitutionally sufcient notice were provided to
such unmanifested claimants.32 The court also
found that it was premature to determine whether
an injunction under 524(g) would be appropriate,
whether the debtors asbestos liabilities should be estimated, or whether a future claimants representative
(FCR) should be appointed.33
Thereafter, on July 15, 2015, the court ordered a bar
date for asbestos claims and approved proposed claim
forms for manifested and unmanifested asbestos claimants.34 Shortly thereafter, the court denied a motion
led by two alleged unmanifested asbestos claimants
seeking appointment of an FCR.35
MEALEYS
On April 14, 2015, the debtors led a plan of reorganization, which did not include any provisions seeking relief under 524(g).36 On December 7, 2015,
debtors Sixth Amended Joint Plan was conrmed.37
The conrmation order overruled an objection led
by unmanifested asbestos claimants which asserted
that the plan could not be conrmed because it did
not comply with 524(g).38
The conrmed plan included a proposed sale of an
EFHC subsidiary that is the largest electric utility
in Texas. However, certain conditions necessary for
the transaction to proceed did not occur before an
April 30, 2016 deadline, which rendered the conrmed plan null and void.39
The debtors led a new proposed plan on May 1,
2016 and an amended plan on May 10, 2016.40
The plan contemplates a spin off or sale of the assets
of debtor Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Company LLC and its direct and indirect subsidiaries (the
TCEH Debtors).41 It also provides that conrmation proceedings for the TCEH Debtors may occur
separately from the conrmation proceedings for
other EFHC debtors.42 Under the proposed plan,
asbestos claims against the EFH Debtors that were
timely led on or before the bar date shall be reinstated on the effective date of the conrmed plan.43
On August 5, 2016, debtors led their Third
Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization.44 That plan
reected the proposed restructuring of the EFH Debtors through a merger with NextEra Energy, a publicly
traded company.45 On August 29, 2016, the court
conrmed the Third Amended Plan (as amended on
August 23, 2016) with respect to the TCEH Debtors.46 On September 12, 2016, unmanifested asbestos
claimants who had objected at virtually all stages of
the plan formulation and conrmation process led a
notice of appeal from the conrmation order.47
The conrmation hearing with respect to the EFHC
Debtors is scheduled to begin on December 1,
2016.48
Geo. V. Hamilton. On October 8, 2015, Geo. V.
Hamilton, Inc. led a Chapter 11 petition in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.49 For the last 70 years, Hamilton has been
engaged in the business of distributing, fabricating,
and installing insulation products, some of which contained asbestos. At the time of its bankruptcy ling,
approximately 2,000 asbestos cases were pending
against Hamilton, mainly in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio.50 Hamilton had previously negotiated settlements with several of its insurers, but
only approximately $8 million in settlement funds
remained.51 Hamilton plans to seek relief under
524(g) to resolve its asbestos liabilities and protect
the companys continued viability.52
On October 23, 2015, an ofcial committee of asbestos claimants (Asbestos Claimants Committee or
ACC) was appointed,53 and on December 23,
2015, the bankruptcy court approved the appointment of Gary Philip Nelson as FCR.54 On July 21,
2016, the court granted Hamiltons motion to extend
its exclusive periods to le a proposed plan of reorganization and to solicit acceptances until December 16,
2016 and February 28, 2017, respectively.55
Henry Vogt. On September 14, 2012, Henry Vogt
Machine Co. (Vogt) led a voluntary Chapter 11
petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Kentucky.56 In 1989, Vogt was rst
named as a defendant in litigation arising from asbestos that Vogt used in products that it manufactured.57
Since then, Vogt paid approximately $8 million in
settlements and $14 million in defense costs for asbestos claims.58 Through its bankruptcy ling, Vogt
intended to wind down its operations and liquidate
its assets for the benet of its creditors.59
Vogt led a proposed plan of liquidation on October 8,
2014.60 A law rm that represented asbestos claimants
objected to the accompanying disclosure statement
because it allegedly provided inadequate information
about the proposed treatment of asbestos claims and
debtors efforts to recover insurance proceeds to pay
such claims.61 On November 19, 2014, the court
approved an amended disclosure statement, and a conrmation hearing was scheduled for December 31,
2014.62
On December 22, 2014, Vogt led an amended plan
of liquidation which, unlike the earlier version of the
plan, included a class of General Unsecured Tort
Claims and provided for the establishment of a Creditors Trust, to which Vogts insurance policies and
coverage rights would be assigned.63 The Creditors
Trust would pay holders of allowed General Unsecured Tort Claims a pro rata share of net cash proceeds generated by the liquidation of Vogts
insurance policies, after the payment of an allowed
administrative claim in the amount of $75,000 held
by the law rm that had objected to the disclosure
statement.64
Certain insurers objected to conrmation of the
amended plan because the debtor provided inadequate notice of that plan, the amended plan was not
insurance neutral, and the amended plan purported
to provide relief under 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code without meeting the statutory requirements.65
On December 31, 2014, the bankruptcy court conrmed the amended plan of liquidation.66
On January 14, 2015, the objecting insurers appealed
from the conrmation order.67 On February 24,
2015, the bankruptcy court denied the insurers
motion for a stay pending appeal.68 On March 3,
2015, the bankruptcy court entered an order closing
the case.69 On March 6, 2015, the district court
entered an order granting a joint motion to dismiss
the insurers appeal.70
Oakfabco. On August 7, 2015, Oakfabco, Inc. led a
voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.71 Oakfabco is the reorganized debtor that emerged in
1988 from a prior bankruptcy case led by Kewanee
Boiler Corp.72 The earlier bankruptcy case resolved all
then-existing asbestos claims against Kewanee Boiler,
but did not resolve future asbestos claims.73 Specically, in 1996, the Kewanee Boiler bankruptcy court
ordered that post-conrmation asbestos claims could
be litigated against Oakfabco and would not be paid
under the Kewanee Boiler plan.74
MEALEYS
insurance assets are transferred to the liquidating

trust, Oakfabco intends to seek approval to dissolve.79
On August 27, 2015, the U.S. Trustee appointed an
ACC.80 On September 11, 2015, Oakfabco led
motions seeking approval of settlement agreements
with three insurers, approval of the sale of its insurance policies back to those insurers, and issuance of an
injunction in favor of those insurers.81 On June 27,
2016, the bankruptcy court approved the debtors
settlement with one of the three insurers, Afliated
FM; no objections were led to this settlement.82
However, the ACC objected to Oakfabcos motions
to approve the CNA and Hartford settlements.83
First, the ACC claimed that the settlement did not
include any value with respect to two CNA policies
with total aggregate limits of $8 million.84 Second, the
ACC claimed that a renewal certicate and related
binder for the Hartford policy at issue provided additional limits of up to $20 million.85 Both insurance
companies and the debtor responded to these two
points, disputing the ACCs factual allegations and
arguing that the settlement amount was reasonable
in any event. No hearing date has been set on the
CNA and Hartford settlement approval motions.
Oakfabcos exclusive period to le a plan has been
extended to September 30, 2016.86
Oakfabcos operations consist solely of defending and

settling asbestos claims.75 It has no assets other than
its insurance coverage, and no known liabilities other
than asbestos liabilities.76 Oakfabco asserts that its
insurance coverage for asbestos claims has exhausted
or will exhaust soon.77
Reichhold Holdings. On September 30, 2014,

Reichhold Holdings US, Inc. and three direct and
indirect subsidiaries led Chapter 11 petitions in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
Reichhold had engaged in the production of coatings
and composites used primarily in manufacturing.87
Reichhold led for bankruptcy due to decreases in
revenue caused by factors such as the decline in housing construction in the early 2000s, the 2008 nancial
crisis, destruction of one of its plants by Superstorm
Sandy, large obligations to fund pensions and provide
post-retirement benets, environmental liabilities,
and signicant secured and unsecured debt.88 Reichhold anticipated using its bankruptcy ling to sell
substantially all of its assets for the benet of its
stakeholders.89
Oakfabco intends to le a plan of liquidation, which

will provide for a liquidating trust, funded by insurance settlement proceeds, to resolve and pay current
asbestos claims.78 After its asbestos liabilities and
On January 12, 2015, the court approved the sale of

substantially all of the debtors assets.90 On May 5,
2015, debtor Reichhold, Inc. changed its name to
Reichhold Liquidation, Inc.91
MEALEYS
On September 15, 2015, the debtors led a plan of

liquidation.92 According to the disclosure statement,
as of the petition date, about 125 asbestos claims
were pending against Reichhold.93 Only 107 proofs
of claims were led by asbestos claimants.94 On
January 13, 2016, the court entered an order conrming Reichholds plan of liquidation.95
Under the plan, asbestos claims will be resolved by a
liquidating trust.96 As a condition to the occurrence of
the effective date of the plan, Reichhold, the Reichhold Liquidating Trust, and certain of Reichholds
liability insurers were to enter into a Products Insurance Cooperation Agreement pursuant to which the
parties established procedures regarding the defense
and resolution of asbestos claims against Reichhold.97
The nal agreement was led on January 14, 2016
and the plan became effective on March 1, 2016. 98
Sepco Corporation. On January 14, 2016, Sepco
Corporation led a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District
of Ohio.99 Sepcos business had included the sale of
asbestos-containing packing and gasket products
through approximately 1984, and the sale of certain
asbestos-containing spiral-wound or semi-metallic
gaskets until approximately 1992.100 From the late
1970s through the present, Sepco has been sued in
over 195,000 asbestos personal injury and wrongful
death cases.101 Sepco ceased active operations in
1995, and since then has been managing its asbestos
litigation and its nancial and insurance assets.102
Sepco led for bankruptcy because its insurance coverage for asbestos claims is nearly exhausted.103 It
intends to liquidate its remaining assets through its
bankruptcy case.104
On February 1, 2016, an ACC was appointed.105
Sepcos exclusive period to le a plan has been
extended to November 9, 2016.106
2.
Significant Developments In Pending

Bankruptcy Cases
Budd Company. On July 30, 2014, the U.S. Trustee

appointed an ACC.107 On October 23, 2014, over
the ACCs objection, the court approved a claims bar
date of March 31, 2015 and a proof of claim form for
asbestos claims that had been diagnosed on or before
the petition date.108 The asbestos claim form required
each claimant to provide information about alleged

exposure to asbestos for which Budd was responsible,
including the work site where such exposure occurred,
the claimants employer, occupation, and industry
while working at the site, the asbestos-containing product to which the claimant was exposed, dates of
alleged exposure, and the activity which resulted in
such exposure.109
On August 13, 2015, Budd objected to asbestos
proofs of claim that were allegedly barred by res judicata (i.e., claims that were previously settled or dismissed with prejudice in the tort system).110 Budd
thereafter sought an order establishing procedures
for omnibus objections to asbestos claims, because it
intended to le additional objections to asbestos
claims that were barred by the applicable statutes of
limitation, preempted under federal statutes, or defective for other reasons.111 Certain of Budds insurers
also sought approval to le objections to asbestos
claims, or to join Budds objections, on the grounds
that the insurers policies gave them the right to control or participate in the defense of asbestos claims
against Budd and the insurers would likely be called
upon to defend and indemnify such claims postconrmation.112
In September, 2015, Budd and its insurers completed a mediation which resulted in a cost-sharing
agreement that addressed issues relating to postconrmation treatment of asbestos claims against
Budd.113 On September 30, 2015, Budd led a
plan which provided that asbestos claims would pass
through the bankruptcy case to be liquidated in state
or federal court, and then paid from one of two Asbestos Funds to be established by the debtor.114 Costs of
defending and settling asbestos claims for which
insurance coverage was available would be allocated
to participating insurance policies and to the Insured
Asbestos Claim Fund, while asbestos claims that were
not covered by insurance would be paid from the
Uninsured Asbestos Claim Fund.115
On October 9, 2015, the ACC moved to withdraw
the reference with respect to the debtors objection to
asbestos claims.116 On November 6, 2016, the ACC
moved to lift the automatic stay to allow asbestos
claims to be litigated against Budd in the tort system.117 On January 6, 2016, the district court withdrew the reference with respect to the debtors
objection.118 That court subsequently granted the

ACCs motion to withdraw the reference with respect
to Budds other objections to asbestos claims.119
On February 10, 2016, the bankruptcy court granted
the ACCs motion for relief from the automatic stay,
nding that the prejudice to the asbestos claimants,
who had been unable to litigate their claims against
the debtor during the bankruptcy case, outweighed
any potential harm to Budd, which appeared to
have sufcient insurance with respect to the asbestos
claims.120 The court, however, stayed the effect of the
order for 30 days to allow Budd to make arrangements
with its insurers to defend the cases once the stay was
lifted.121 The stay of the lift-stay order was extended
several times in light of ongoing discussions between
Budd and its insurers.122
Budd continued to negotiate the terms of a nal costsharing agreement with its insurers and the amount of
funding for the Insured Asbestos Claim Fund and the
Uninsured Asbestos Claim Fund, and negotiated
other plan-related issues with its retiree creditors.
On May 4, 2016, Budd led its Ninth Amended
Chapter 11 Plan, which the retirees and the ACC
both supported.123 On May 31, 2016, the court
entered an order approving Budds entry into the
nal cost sharing agreement with certain insurers.124
On June 27, 2016, the bankruptcy court entered an
order conrming Budds plan. As noted, the plan
allows asbestos claims to pass through to the tort system, where they will be defended pursuant to the
terms of the plan, including the nal cost-sharing
agreement between Budd and its insurers.125 The
conrmed plan became effective on August 2,
2016.126
Christy Refractories. Following the entry of a nal
decree in this case on December 29, 2011, the bankruptcy court has reopened the case and immediately
closed it on three occasions in 2013, 2014, and 2016,
in order to grant insurers who settled with the Christy
Trust post-conrmation 524(g) protection under
the conrmed plan.127
Consolidated Aluminum (Conalco). The U.S.
Trustees appeal from the June 5, 2014 order conrming the debtors plan of liquidation, discussed in our
previous article, was short-lived. On July 28, 2014,
MEALEYS
the bankruptcy court entered a consent order resolving the appeal, based on an agreement between the
U.S. Trustee and the debtor that the debtor would le
a modied conrmation order and plan.128 That same
day, the bankruptcy court entered an amended conrmation order.129 On April 22, 2015, the court
entered an order stating that the estate had been
fully administered and closing the case.130
Flintkote. As we reported previously, following conrmation of Flintkotes original plan by the bankruptcy court in December, 2012,131 Flintkotes
former parent, Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.
(ITCAN), appealed the conrmation ruling to the
district court, which afrmed the conrmation order
in July, 2014.132 ITCAN then appealed the district
courts decision to the Third Circuit. On February 9,
2015, Flintkote led an amended plan and disclosure
statement, reecting that Flintkote and ITCAN had
settled their dispute and that in exchange for
ITCANs contribution of $575 million to Flintkotes
reorganization, ITCAN and related parties would be
protected by the 524(g) channeling injunction from
future asbestos claims.133 On August 10, 2015, the
bankruptcy court entered an order conrming the
amended plan and approving the ITCAN settlement.134 The district court afrmed the conrmation
order on August 13, 2015.135 On October 8, 2015,
the Third Circuit dismissed ITCANs appeal on joint
stipulation by the parties.136
During the pendency of the Third Circuit appeal,
Flintkote entered into a $1.7 million settlement agreement with one of its insurers, Travelers, which provided for a policy buyback by Travelers, mutual
releases of claims arising out of the subject policies
or asbestos claims arising under the policies, and protection for Travelers under 524(g).137
On April 4, 2016, a federal district court in California,
applying California law, awarded partial summary
judgment to insurers in a coverage dispute with Flintkote.138 The court found that the subject policies only
obligate the insurers to pay Flintkote for the amount
that Flintkote actually pays to asbestos claimants out of
the trust, rejecting Flintkotes argument that recovering
the full liquidated value from the insurer would ultimately lead to a greater recovery for asbestos claimants.139 The California district court also granted
Flintkotes and the trusts motion for a bond pursuant
MEALEYS
to California Ins. Code 1616, and ordered the parties

to meet and confer regarding the bond amount.140 On
May 9, 2016, the district court set the bond amount at
$1.5 million plus prejudgment interest, nding that
the only currently ascertainable and reasonably certain
monetary damage amount sought is $1.5 million
(USD) the amount for which defendants are alleged
to be in arrears for billings owed.141
Garlock. Our previous article reported on the bankruptcy courts January 10, 2014 estimation decision
and the resulting urry of litigation seeking access to
sealed evidence. But in addition to that activity, the
bankruptcy court also dealt with conrmation-related
activity, including granting Garlocks motion to set a
claims bar date for asbestos claims against Garlock
and/or its afliate, Garrison, that were settled on or
before June 5, 2010, but were unpaid.142
On January 14, 2015, Garlock led its Second
Amended Plan. 143 The accompanying disclosure
statement stated that the debtors had obtained the
FCRs support for the Second Amended Plan.144
On April 10, 2015, the court approved the disclosure statement for debtors Second Amended Plan,
established solicitation and conrmation procedures,
and set an asbestos claims bar date.145 The order
provided that the debtors would solicit votes from
holders of four classes of asbestos claims settled
asbestos claims, current asbestos claims, future asbestos claims, and asbestos claims backed by judgments
even though the debtors contended that these classes
were unimpaired under the plan.146 The order stated
that the court would determine at the conrmation
hearing whether these classes were impaired or unimpaired.147 The order required holders of current
asbestos claims who submitted ballots to certify that
(a) the claim had not been dismissed with prejudice or
settled and paid, and was not known to be time
barred, (b) the person whose asbestos-related injury
formed the basis of the claim (the Injured Party) had
been diagnosed with pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, lung cancer, laryngeal cancer, or asbestosis,
(c) the Injured Party was exposed to asbestos released
from asbestos-containing gaskets or packing manufactured, produced, fabricated, distributed, supplied,
marketed or sold by Garlock, and (d) if an attorney
completed the certications, that the attorney was
authorized by the claim holder to vote on the plan
on the claim holders behalf.148 With respect to

holders of future asbestos claims, the order provided
that ballots would be treated as proofs of claim, and
that the ballots would be served on the FCR, although
the court would defer until the conrmation hearing
any ruling regarding whether the FCR had the legal
authority and capacity to cast votes for future claimants.149 The court scheduled the conrmation hearing to begin on June 20, 2016.150
Thereafter, the parties engaged in extensive discovery
concerning plan conrmation. On July 24, 2015, the
court authorized the debtors to serve a subpoena on the
Manville Trust, seeking information about persons
asserting claims against the debtors who had also led
claims with the Manville Trust, in order to estimate
non-mesothelioma claims against Garlock.151 Garlock
also served interrogatories and document requests on
111 law rms representing asbestos claimants against
Garlock, seeking production of claimant-specic information, which Garlock asserted was necessary to estimate non-mesothelioma claims against it, refute the
ACCs claim that an overwhelming number of asbestos
claims made the plan infeasible, and show that the vast
majority of ballots submitted by holders of current
asbestos claims were invalid.152
On January 5, 2016, the day before the court was
scheduled to hear arguments on cross-motions for
summary judgment on plan conrmation issues, the
court continued all hearing dates, based on a joint
request by the debtors, the ACC, and the FCR.153
On May 20, 2016, the debtors, along with the FCR
and the ACC, led a joint plan of reorganization (the
Joint Plan).154 Unlike Garlocks earlier proposed
plans, the Joint Plan proposed to seek relief under
524(g) to resolve all current and future asbestos
claims against Garlock, Garrison, and their afliate
Coltec, a non-debtor. The Joint Plan proposes that
Coltec will undergo a restructuring, which will culminate in its merger with OldCo LLC, provided that at
least 75% of the voting Asbestos Claimants holding at
least two-thirds of the claim amounts vote in favor of
the Joint Plan.155 If it receives sufcient votes to
approve the Joint Plan, Coltec would then merge
with Old Co, which would le a pre-packaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy and seek to have its case jointly
administered with the existing Garlock bankruptcy
case.156
On July 29, 2016, the court entered an order establishing conrmation-related deadlines and procedures.157 Among other things, the order states that
after OldCo (Coltec) commences its bankruptcy
case, it will seek a bar date for asbestos claims against
Coltec that are based on asbestos-related disease diagnosed on or before August 1, 2014, for which a lawsuit against any defendant or a claim against any
asbestos trust was led on or before August 1,
2014.158 The order also provides that the conrmation hearing will commence on May 15, 2017.159
Lloyd E. Mitchell. As we previously reported, one
plaintiffs law rm the Nicholl rm which had
vigorously opposed efforts to lift the automatic stay so
that claimants represented by the Angelos rm could
receive payments on their asbestos claims from the
debtors insurers, had appealed the district courts ruling afrming the bankruptcy courts lift-stay ruling. On
September 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit granted a stipulated motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal.160
On November 5, 2014, the bankruptcy court entered
an order dismissing the bankruptcy case.161
Metex. On August 1, 2014, the district court afrmed
the bankruptcy courts order conrming Metexs plan
of reorganization and issuing an injunction under
524(g).162 The effective date of the plan occurred
on September 3, 2014.163
Pittsburgh Corning. As we previously reported, the
bankruptcy courts May 24, 2014 conrmation order
was appealed by two of Pittsburgh Cornings insurers
and Garlock, although Garlock voluntarily dismissed
its appeal on March 14, 2014.164 On September 30,
2014, the district court afrmed the bankruptcy
courts conrmation order, overruling plan objections
by the insurers.165
The insurers appealed to the Third Circuit.166 On
March 26, 2015, the insurers moved for relief from
the district courts judgment based on alleged new evidence that law rms representing asbestos claimants
had engaged in fraud by concealing evidence regarding
their clients exposure to asbestos products, pursuing
invalid or fraudulent claims, and casting fraudulent
ballots on bankruptcy plans.167 The insurers asserted
that if such new evidence had been available before the
district court entered its afrmation order, the insurers
could have supplemented the record there, which
would have altered the outcome.168
MEALEYS
On August 12, 2015, the district court denied the

insurers motion for relief from judgment, and the
insurers appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit.169
That appeal was consolidated with the insurers conrmation appeal. On January 6, 2016, the parties led
a stipulation to dismiss the Third Circuit appeals. The
next day, the court entered an order dismissing the
appeals.170
Upon returning to the bankruptcy court, the plan proponents requested approval of technical amendments
to the Modied Third Amended Plan, which were
necessitated by, inter alia, the passage of seven years
since the plan was led on January 29, 2009.171 On
March 24, 2016, the court granted the plan proponents motion.172 On March 29, 2016, the debtor
led a complete set of the plan documents, as modied
by the recently approved technical amendments and
including other conforming corrections.173 The effective date of the plan occurred on April 27, 2016.174
On August 29, 2016, Reorganized PCC led a
motion for entry of a nal decree closing the case,
stating that the plan has been substantially consummated. 175 A hearing has been scheduled for
October 6, 2016.176
Plant Insulation. After hearing oral argument on the
non-settled insurers appeal from the bankruptcy
courts post-remand conrmation order, the district
court on August 18, 2014 afrmed the conrmation
order, including the issuance of a channeling injunction under 524(g).177 The effective date of the plan
occurred on September 22, 2014.178
Rapid-American. As we previously reported, RapidAmerican led its Chapter 11 case in order to formulate
a plan under 524(g) that would distribute its remaining insurance assets to satisfy asbestos claims. On
March 31, 2015, Rapid-American, the ACC, and the
FCR commenced an adversary action seeking declaratory relief and damages for breach of contract and bad
faith against Rapid-Americans remaining solvent
excess insurers.179 An amended complaint alleged
that Rapid-American had incurred losses in excess of
$700 million and/or paid defense and indemnity costs
for asbestos claims in an amount sufcient to trigger
the defendant insurers excess policies.180
Rapid-American, the ACC, and the FCR led two
motions for partial summary judgment on January 22,
MEALEYS
2016. One motion sought a declaration that a threeyear excess policy issued by St. Paul provided three
annual aggregate limits, totaling $30 million.181 The
other motion sought a declaration that St. Paul was
required to pay for asbestos-related damages once the
debtors asbestos liabilities exceeded the limits of the
underlying policies, rather than after the insured had
exhausted the limits of underlying insurance by actual
payment.182
National Union led two cross-motions for summary
judgment, arguing that (a) one of its excess policies,
issued for a 14-month period, provided a single aggregate limit of $7 million, rather than two separate
aggregate limits totaling $14 million, and (b) its excess
policies are triggered only when the underlying insurance is exhausted by actual payment of claims or
losses. 183 St. Paul and Travelers also led crossmotions for partial summary judgment that were mirror images of the plaintiffs motions.184
On June 7, 2016, the bankruptcy court granted the
insurers cross-motions for summary judgment in
part, holding that all but one of the excess policies
required the underlying policies to be exhausted by
actual payment before their liability attaches.185 The
court noted that the motions and cross-motions for
summary judgment regarding the aggregate limits of
the 3-year St. Paul policy and the 14-month National
Union policy were likely rendered moot by this decision, but invited the parties to contact the court to
discuss that issue.186
To date, Rapid-American has not yet led a plan.
Resillo Press Pad. On September 9, 2014, the bankruptcy court granted a motion led by Resillos Chapter 7 trustee to approve an agreement with two of
Resillos liability insurers regarding post-bankruptcy
service of new asbestos claims, insurer access to the
debtors books and records, and related matters. The
order also lifted the automatic stay to allow asbestos
claimants to pursue their claims against Resillo, provided that any judgments would be satised by available insurance coverage.187 On February 4, 2015, the
bankruptcy court closed the bankruptcy case.188
Specialty Products/Bondex. This case was resolved
in late 2014 by the ling of a consensual plan of
reorganization involving Specialty Products and
Bondex (the Initial Debtors) and two afliates,

NMBFiL, Inc. and Republic Powdered Metals, Inc.
(Republic), who were also defendants in numerous
asbestos cases. NMBFiL and Republic led their own
Chapter 11 cases in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware on August 15, 2014 and
August 31, 2014, respectively.189
Pursuant to term sheets agreed among NMBFiL,
Republic, the Initial Debtors, their non-debtor parent
RPM International, the FCR, the ACC, and ad hoc
committees of asbestos claimants asserting claims
against Republic and NMBFiL, the parties agreed to
the ling of a consensual plan of reorganization that
would establish a 524(g) trust for the benet of all
asbestos claimants against the Initial Debtors, NMBFiL,
and Republic.
On September 26, 2014, the bankruptcy court
granted a motion led by the Debtors to set bar
dates for claims other than asbestos claims.190 This
mooted hotly-litigated disputes among the parties
relating to the proposed form of order setting an
asbestos claims bar date and the proof of claim
forms for asbestos claims.
The debtors led a joint plan of reorganization on
October 23, 2014 with the support of the ACC and
FCR, superseding the competing plans led in 2013
by the Initial Debtors, on the one hand, and the ACC
and FCR, on the other hand.191 The joint plan proposed to employ the trust-injunction mechanism of
524(g).192 The Trust would be segregated into an
SPHC Trust Account and an NMBFiL Trust
Account, each available only to the applicable reorganized debtor and each tied to its own permanent
channeling injunction.193 On December 10, 2014,
the bankruptcy court conrmed the Debtors joint
plan of reorganization in its entirety and issued the
two channeling injunctions.194 The district court
entered an order afrming the conrmation orders
the same day, and the plan became effective on
December 23, 2014.195
On September 24, 2015, the district court dismissed
appeals led from the bankruptcy courts estimation
decision.196
THAN. We previously reported that certain AIG
insurers had led an action in the Delaware Court
MEALEYS
of Chancery against PENAC, THAN, and the

524(g) Trust claiming that the Trust was paying
many more asbestos claims than expected and that
the defendants were in breach of contract for failing
to allow AIG to exercise its audit rights.197
On June 4, 2015, the court granted AIGs request for
declaratory relief, ruling that AIG can audit the
THAN Trust once a year pursuant to its broad
right to audit the Trusts payments and distributions
under its settlement agreement with THAN.198 The
order stated that AIG still cannot use the information
for any purpose other than to conrm the Trusts
payments, and it cannot challenge or question its
obligations to make payments except for when it discovers accounting errors or fraud.199 Arguing that
THAN continued to deny it access to audit information under the guise of condentiality, AIG later
moved to compel THAN to produce information
about cancer claims that had been paid by the
Trust. The Trust objected on the basis that AIG
could not have unfettered access to the requested
data unless AIG agreed to preserve the condentiality
of the information and to limit its use. The court
granted AIGs motion to compel on February 8,
2016,200 and simultaneously entered a protective
order instructing AIG to maintain the audit information as condential and requiring third parties to sign
a nondisclosure agreement in order to access the disclosed information.201
United Gilsonite. On September 30, 2014, the
debtor led a modied rst amended plan of reorganization which provided for the establishment of a
524(g) trust and the issuance of a channeling
injunction.202 Settling insurers were to be protected
by the channeling injunction.203
On December 8, 2014, the bankruptcy court conrmed the plan and the district court afrmed the
conrmation order and the issuance of a channeling
injunction.204 Also on the same day, the bankruptcy
court entered orders approving the debtors insurance
settlements and entering injunctions under 105(a)
barring suits against the settled insurers relating to or
arising out of UGLs conduct or the settled policies.205
The effective date of the plan occurred on December 31,
2014.206
10
Yarway. On December 12, 2014, Yarway informed

the bankruptcy court that Yarway and its non-debtor
parent, Tyco International, had reached a settlement
with the ACC and FCR pursuant to which the parties
had agreed in principle to the ling of a plan of reorganization providing for an asbestos trust under
524(g) and a channeling injunction protecting
Tyco, its current and former afliates, and other
related entities, from asbestos claims arising from Yarway product lines.207 Tyco and Yarway agreed to contribute $325 million to the Trust.208
On December 22, 2014, Yarway led its proposed plan
of reorganization.209 The channeling injunction established under the plan protects Yarway, Reorganized Yarway, settling insurers, Tyco, all current and former
afliates of Tyco other than Yarway, and any of their
successors or assigns.210 The bankruptcy court conrmed the plan on April 8, 2015,211 and the district
court afrmed the conrmation order on July 14,
2015.212 The effective date of the plan was August 19,
2015.213
3.
Overview Of Recent Asbestos Bankruptcy

Developments
Asbestos proofs of claim and bar dates. Following

the example set by the court in Garlock, which
ordered asbestos claimants to provide personal
health-related information, alleged asbestos exposure
information, and claim-related information in
response to the debtors personal injury questionnaire, and that courts condemnation of the asbestos
plaintiffs bars pattern of non-disclosure and startling pattern of misrepresentation,214 several other
bankruptcy courts have also set bar dates for asbestos
claims and have required asbestos proofs of claim to
provide information about, inter alia, exposure to
the debtors asbestos-containing products.
As discussed above, in Specialty Products, the bankruptcy court found that setting a bar date for asbestos
claims would be appropriate, but the parties reached a
consensus on a plan before a proposed asbestos claim
form was nalized. Nevertheless, several asbestos claimants led proofs of claim in the Specialty Products
case. The reorganized debtors rst omnibus objection
to claims was directed to thirteen claims led by six
asbestos claimants, asserting that they should be disallowed because the claims were channeled to the
MEALEYS
asbestos personal injury trust established by the conrmed plan.215 On August 18, 2016, the court sustained the omnibus objection, and disallowed the
asbestos proofs of claim, without prejudice to the
claimants seeking payment from the trust.216
In Budd, the court sua sponte entered an order scheduling a hearing to set a bar date for all non-administrative
claims.217 The debtor urged the court to require asbestos claimants to le proofs of claim identifying, among
other things, the Budd asbestos-containing product to
which they allegedly were exposed, the circumstances
of exposure, and the resulting disease, and providing
information about the claimants medical history, litigation relating to the claim, and claims submitted to
asbestos trusts, in order to ferret out illegitimate claims
and to identify claimants who had already been paid by
other defendants or by asbestos trusts.218 The ACC
opposed the setting of a claims bar date for asbestos
claims, arguing that most courts handling asbestos
bankruptcy cases had not required asbestos claimants
to le proofs of claim.219 The ACC asserted that
requiring the ling of claim forms was unnecessary
because the bankruptcy court would not have jurisdiction in any event to resolve such bodily injury and
wrongful death claims, and requiring asbestos proofs
of claim to be led would cause the asbestos victims
undue anxiety and would burden the bankruptcy estate
with excessive claim processing costs.220 The claim
form that was ultimately approved by the Budd court
required each asbestos claimant to provide exposure
information, but did not require information about
claims submitted to asbestos trusts or recoveries from
other defendants.221 Only claimants whose asbestosrelated disease had been diagnosed on or before the
petition date were required to le proofs of claim.222
Budd later objected to a large number of asbestos
proofs of claim, alleging that they were barred by res
judicata. Thereafter, several of Budds insurers sought
to join Budds objections or to le their own objections, and litigation ensued with the ACC, culminating several months later in the entry of orders
withdrawing the reference with respect to the asbestos
claims and granting relief from the automatic stay to
litigate the asbestos claims in the tort system.223
Before any such litigation commenced, however, the
parties reached agreement on a consensual plan pursuant to which asbestos claims would pass through the
bankruptcy and be paid from one of two funds established under the plan.
Subsequently, in EFHC, the bankruptcy court went

even farther than the courts in Budd, Specialty Products, and Garlock, and authorized an asbestos claim
bar date, applicable to both manifested and unmanifested asbestos claims.224 The court found that as long
as constitutionally sufcient notice was provided to
asbestos claimants, then both present and future
asbestos claims could be discharged. As a result, the
debtors retained experts to develop a comprehensive
notice plan and negotiated the scope and terms of
claim forms for manifested and unmanifested asbestos
claimants, which the court approved.225 The Third
Amended Plan led by EFHC provides that allowed
legacy asbestos claims will be reinstated, and that all
other prepetition asbestos claims are discharged.226
Coupled with extensive notice programs, the setting
of bar dates in non-524(g) cases could lead to asbestos
claims being discharged, even if no asbestos-related
disease has manifested by the time of conrmation.
It remains to be seen whether the lengthy litigation in
these cases over the setting of asbestos bar dates, the
form of notice and the claim form to be used, as well
as the cost of hiring media and publication experts to
ensure comprehensive notice to all potential claimants, will be worthwhile to the debtors by strengthening their arguments in favor of discharge.
While not addressing asbestos claims, a recent decision
by the Second Circuit in the Motors Liquidation bankruptcy regarding enforcement of the free and clear
sale provisions under 363 to bar mass tort claims,
and highlighting the importance of providing adequate
notice to claimants, could be instructive in the asbestos
context.227 In that case, the Second Circuit reviewed
several decisions by the bankruptcy court enforcing the
free and clear language in the sale order conveying
Old GMs assets to New GM. Certain owners of prepetition GM cars with defective ignition switches
sought to pursue class action successor liability litigation against New GM despite the 363 sale order. The
court undertook a two-step analysis, deciding rst
which claims were subject to the bar imposed by the
free and clear sale order, and second, whether the
affected claimants had received notice of the sale
motion consistent with the requirements of due process, in order for their claims to be barred.
The court held that successor liability claims were
barred to the extent the claims arose from a right to
11
MEALEYS
payment that arose pre-petition or resulted from

pre-petition conduct, even if the claims were only
contingent, and the claimant had some contact or
relationship with the debtor such that the claimant
is identiable.228 Thus, claimants who had owned
GM cars with defective ignitions pre-petition had sufcient contact with Old GM for their claims to be
affected by the sale order, but claimants who bought
cars from New GM post-conrmation or from third
parties in the used car market post-conrmation did
not have a sufcient relationship with Old GM.229
limits in excess of $843 million to pay asbestos

claims,236 conrmed a plan of liquidation which provided that a liquidating trust would pay asbestos claims,
only to the extent the asbestos claim was not satised
by insurance.237 Henry Vogt, on the other hand,
asserted that it had exhausted its ability to recover
from its insurers, who had consistently denied coverage.238 Nevertheless, in its plan of liquidation, Henry
Vogt established a creditors trust, to which it transferred its insurance policies and causes of action against
insurers, for the payment of unsecured tort claims.239
With respect to due process, the court found that Old

GMs issuance of publication notice was inadequate
with respect to claimants who had purchased their
cars from Old GM. Since Old GM knew or should
have known of the ignition switch defect and was
required by federal law to keep records of all initial
purchasers of its cars, it should have been required to
provide actual notice by mail or by an equivalent
method to those purchasers.230 Accordingly, the court
reversed the bankruptcy courts decision enforcing the
sale order with respect to ignition defect claims.231 On
September 14, 2016, the court denied New GMs
motion for rehearing or for rehearing en banc.232
Even though none of these debtors used the 524(g)

trust/injunction mechanism to resolve their asbestos
liabilities, the bankruptcy courts conrmed plans
which purported to channel asbestos claims to a
trust and bar asbestos claimants from taking action
to recover on their claims from any property of the
debtors or their estates. The conrmation order in the
Budd bankruptcy, for example, stated that all Persons who have, held or may hold Asbestos Claims
against the Debtor or the Estate, whether manifested
or led before or after the Petition Date, are limited to
recovery on account thereof to the Asbestos Funds
and/or the proceeds of Asbestos Insurance Policies
and are prohibited from collecting, recovering, or
receiving payment or recovery with respect to any
such Asbestos Claims from any other asset of the
Debtor or its Estate.240 The conrmation orders in
the Reichhold and Henry Vogt bankruptcies also preclude asbestos claimants from taking any action to
recover on their claims except as provided in the conrmed plans of liquidation.
Resolving asbestos claims through the establishment of non-524(g) trusts. Several recent debtors
have chosen not to seek relief under 524(g), but
rather to try to establish non-524(g) trusts to marshal
insurance proceeds to pay present and future asbestos
claimants. In Budd, for example, the debtor stated that
it had insurance policies that would provide $100 million in coverage for asbestos claims.233 Budds conrmed plan of reorganization provided for claims to
return to the tort system and for settlements and
judgments to be paid by either an insured asbestos
claims fund or an uninsured asbestos claims fund, as
appropriate. The Budd plan also created an administrative fund to pay asbestos claims and related
expenses, and provided that unspent amounts in
the various funds would ow into an asbestos
springing trust, in the event the reorganized debtor
dissolved.234 The asbestos springing trust is to dissolve when all lawsuits arising from asbestos claims
brought as of January 1, 2045 have been resolved.235
Some liquidating debtors established trusts funded by
insurance assets to pay asbestos claims. Reichhold, for
example, which asserted that it had insurance with
12
The use of trusts in non-524(g) cases may gain traction, since the process does not require payment of
fees for ACCs or FCRs and, as the EFHC court has
held, 524(g) is not the exclusive means to deal with
asbestos liabilities in bankruptcy cases.241 However,
all such efforts must confront the Third Circuits
admonition in Combustion Engineering that we do
not believe that 105(a) can be employed to extend a
channeling injunction to non-debtors in an asbestos
case where the requirements of 524(g) are not otherwise met. 242
Attempts to obtain access to asbestos claimant
information. Following the Garlock estimation decision, various entities have sought access to records
relating to asbestos claimants and payments made to
MEALEYS
asbestos claimants, based on suspicions of fraud. As

discussed above, insurers succeeded in obtaining
access to claims and payment information from the
THAN asbestos trust in order to exercise their audit
rights under a settlement agreement with THAN.
On June 30, 2016, Honeywell International led
motions to access Rule 2019 statements in nine separate bankruptcy cases.243 Honeywell asserted that it is
entitled to obtain the Rule 2019 statements because it
is a frequent defendant in asbestos cases and because it
has an obligation in perpetuity to fund all distributions made by the NARCO Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement Trust.244 Citing the Garlock estimation
decision and its nding of a startling pattern of misrepresentation by asbestos claimants, Honeywell
asserted that it needs access to the Rule 2019 statements in order to determine whether the NARCO
Trust was the victim of invalid or fraudulent claims,
for which Honeywell is nancially responsible.245
Honeywell asserts that it has standing to seek the
documents as a member of the public, and that it
has a statutory and common law right to access documents led in these bankruptcy cases because such
documents are public records.246 Ford Motor Company, also a frequent defendant in asbestos litigation,
joined Honeywells motions.247 The trusts established
in all nine cases have opposed Honeywells motion.248
On August 4, 2016, the asbestos trusts led an emergency motion seeking to appoint retired judge Judith
Fitzgerald to serve as a Rule 2019 expert and
referee.249 Honeywell has opposed the emergency

motion on the grounds that Judge Fitzgerald is conicted due to her past involvement in the asbestos
cases.250 On August 24, 2016, Judge Kevin Gross,
to whom the Honeywell motions have been assigned,
wrote to Judge Fitzgerald, asking her view as to the
existence of any conict.251 On September 7, 2016,
Judge Fitzgerald responded that she felt she could
serve the court as a neutral without conict, but
that due to her current role as a mediator in a matter
involving Honeywell, the NARCO Trust, the
NARCO Trust Advisory Committees and the FCR,
she asked the court to give due consideration to any
objection that might be asserted by any of the mediation parties to her serving in that capacity.252 Honeywells motion and the trusts emergency motion are
scheduled to be heard on October 14, 2016.253
It is interesting to note that since 2008, the API
Asbestos Trust, which was established in 2007, has
published on its website the names, diseases, and
amounts of payments made to asbestos claimants.254
4.
Conclusion
After 15 years of reporting on asbestos bankruptcy

developments in this publication, new issues and
arguments continue to be raised in these cases.
Further, parties creativity in resolving present and
future asbestos claims under 524(g) or otherwise
continues to impress. We look forward to providing
further commentary on these issues.
CHART 1:
COMPANY NAME AND YEAR OF BANKRUPTCY FILING
(CHRONOLOGICALLY)
Company
Year
UNR Industries
1982
Johns-Manville Corp.
1982
Amatex Corp.
1982
Unarco
1982
Waterman Steamship Corp.
1983
Wallace & Gale Co.
1984
13
Company
14
MEALEYS
Year
Forty-Eight Insulations
1985
Philadelphia Asbestos Corp. (Pacor)
1986
Standard Insulations, Inc.
1986
Prudential Lines, Inc.
1986
McLean Industries
1986
United States Lines
1986
Gatke Corp.
1987
Todd Shipyards
1987
Nicolet, Inc.
1987
Raymark Corp./Raytech Corp.
1989
Delaware Insulations
1989
Hillsborough Holding Co.
1989
Celotex Corp.
1990
Carey Canada, Inc.
1990
National Gypsum
1990
Eagle-Picher Industries
1991
H.K. Porter Co.
1991
Kentile Floors
1992
American Shipbuilding, Inc.
1993
Keene Corp.
1993
Lykes Bros. Steamship
1995
Rock Wool Manufacturing
1996
M.H. Detrick
1998
Fuller-Austin
1998
Brunswick Fabricators
1998
Harnischfeger Corp.
1999
Rutland Fire Clay
1999
Babcock & Wilcox Co.
2000
Pittsburgh Corning
2000
Owens Corning Corp./Fibreboard
2000
Armstrong World Industries
2000
Burns & Roe, Inc.
2001
G-I Holdings
2001
Skinner Engine Co.
2001
W.R. Grace
2001
MEALEYS
Company
Year
USG Corp.
2001
E.J. Bartells
2001
United States Mineral Products
2001
Federal Mogul
2001
Murphy Marine Services
2001
Chicago Fire Brick
2001
Insul Co.
2001
Swan Transportation Co.
2001
North American Refractories Corp. (NARCO)
2002
Kaiser Aluminum
2002
GIT/Harbison-Walker/AP Green Industries
2002
Plibrico Co.
2002
Shook & Fletcher
2002
Porter-Hayden Co.
2002
Artra Group, Inc.
2002
Special Metals Corp.
2002
Asbestos Claims Management Corp.
2002
ACandS
2002
JT Thorpe Co. (S.D. Tex.)
2002
A-Best Products
2002
Western MacArthur/Western Asbestos
2002
C.E. Thurston
2003
Combustion Engineering
2003
Congoleum Corp.
2003
J. Graves Insulation Co.
2003
Mid-Valley (Halliburton subsidiaries)
2003
Muralo Co.
2003
Flintkote Co./Flintkote Mines
2004
Oglebay Norton Co. (ONCO)
2004
Special Electric
2004
Quigley Co.
2004
Utex Industries
2004
JT Thorpe, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
2004
API, Inc.
2005
Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd.
2005
15
MEALEYS
Company
2005
Brauer Supply Co.
2005
Dana Corporation
2006
ABB Lummus Global
2006
Lloyd E. Mitchell Co.
2006
Thorpe Insulation Co.
2007
Pacic Insulation Co.2
2007
Schutte & Koerting, Inc.
2007
Hercules Chemical Co.
2008
Christy Refractories Co. LLC
2008
T H Agriculture & Nutrition, LLC
2008
Plant Insulation Co.
2009
Durabla Manufacturing Co.
Year
Asarco1
General Motors Corp.
2009
3
2009
Bondex International, Inc. and Specialty Products

Holding Corp.4
2010
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, The

Anchor Packing Company; Garrison
Litigation Management Group Ltd.
2010
Leslie Controls, Inc.
2010
Triple A Machine Shop, Inc.
2010
Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corp.
2010
State Insulation Corp.
2011
United Gilsonite Laboratories
2011
C.P. Hall Company
2011
National Service Industries
2012
Henry Vogt Machine Co.
2012
Metex Mfg. Corp.
2012
Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc.
2012
Dowman Products, Inc.
2013
Resillo Press Pad Co.
2013
Rapid-American Corp.
2013
A.L. Burbank & Co., Ltd.
2013
Three subsidiaries of Asarco AR Sacaton LLC; Southern Peru Holdings, LLC; and Asarco Exploration Company led for Chapter 11 on December 12, 2006, citing asbestos exposure.
Pacic Insulation Co. is related to Thorpe Insulation Co., which led two weeks earlier in the same court.
An afliate of Durabla Durabla Canada Ltd. led for Chapter 11 on November 8, 2010, citing asbestos exposure.
4
Two afliates of Bondex and SPHC NMBFIL, Inc., formerly known as Bondo Corporation, and Republic Powdered Metals, Inc. led for Chapter 11 on August 15, 2014 and August 31,
2014, respectively.
2
3
16
MEALEYS
Company
Year
Saberhagen Holdings
2013
Yarway Corporation
2013
Consolidated Aluminum Corp.
2013
Budd Company
2014
Energy Future Holdings Corp.
2014
Reichhold Holdings US, Inc.; Reichhold, Inc.;

Canadyne Corp.; Canadyne-Georgia Corp.
2014
Oakfabco, Inc.
2015
Eagle, Inc.
2015
Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc.
2015
Sepco Corporation
2016
CHART 2:
COMPANY NAME AND YEAR OF BANKRUPTCY FILING
(ALPHABETIZED)
Company
ABB Lummus Global
2006
A-Best Products
2002
ACandS, Inc.
2002
2013
Amatex Corp.
1982
American Shipbuilding Co.
1993
Anchor Packing Company
2010
Ancor Holdings Inc./National Gypsum
1990
API, Inc.
2005
2000
Artra Group, Inc.
2002
Asarco, Inc.
Asbestos Claims Management Corp.

1
Year
2005
2002
Three subsidiaries of Asarco AR Sacaton LLC; Southern Peru Holdings, LLC; and Asarco Exploration Company led for Chapter 11 on December 12, 2006, citing asbestos exposure.
17
MEALEYS
Company
Year
2000
Bondex International, Inc. and Specialty Products

Holding Corp.2
2010
Brauer Supply Co.
2005
Brunswick Fabricators
1998
Budd Company
2014
Burns & Roe
2001
Carey Canada, Inc.
1990
Celotex Corp.
1990
C.E. Thurston
2003
Chicago Fire Brick
2001
2008
2003
Congoleum Corp.
2003
2013
C.P. Hall Company
2011
Dana Corporation
2006
Delaware Insulations Distributors
1989
2013
2009
Eagle, Inc.
2015
Eagle Picher Industries
1991
EJ Bartells Co., Inc.
2001
2014
Federal Mogul Corp.
2001
Flintkote Co.
2004
Flintkote Mines Ltd.
2004
1985
Fuller-Austin Insulation Co.

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC
1998
4
2010
Gatke Corp.
1987
General Motors Corp.
2009
2015
Two afliates of Bondex and SPHC NMBFIL, Inc., formerly known as Bondo Corporation, and Republic Powdered Metals, Inc. led for Chapter 11 on August 15, 2014 and August 31,
2014, respectively.
An afliate of Durabla Durabla Canada Ltd. led for Chapter 11 on November 8, 2010, citing asbestos exposure.
4
Garlock led along with its afliates The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison Litigation Management Group Ltd.
3
18
MEALEYS
Company
Year
G-I Holdings
2001
GIT/Harbison-Walker/AP Green
2002
Harnischfeger Corp.
1999
2012
2008
Hillsborough Holdings
1989
H.K. Porter Co., Inc.
1991
Insul Co.
2001
2003
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
2010
2006
McLean Industries
1986
Metex Mfg. Corp.
2012
M.H. Detrick
1998
Mid-Valley (Halliburton subsidiaries)
2003
The Muralo Co., Inc.
2003
Murphy Marine Services, Inc.
2001
National Gypsum Co.
1990
2012
North American Refractories Co. (NARCO)
2002
Nicolet, Inc.
1987
Oakfabco, Inc.
2015
Oglebay Norton (ONCO)
2004
2012
Owens Corning/Fibreboard
2000
Pacic Insulation Co.
2007
Pacic Insulation Co. is related to Thorpe Insulation Co., which led two weeks earlier in the same court.
19
Company
20
MEALEYS
Year
Philadelphia Asbestos Corp. (Pacor)
1986
Pittsburgh Corning
2000
Plant Insulation Co.
2009
Plibrico Co.
2002
Porter-Hayden Co.
2002
1986
Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corp.
2010
Quigley Co.
2004
2013
1989
Reichhold Holdings US, Inc.; Reichhold, Inc.;

Canadyne Corp.; Canadyne-Georgia Corp.
2014
2013
1996
Rutland Fire Clay Co.
1999
Saberhagen Holdings
2013
2007
Sepco Corporation
2016
Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co.
2002
Skinner Engine Co.
2001
Special Electric Co.
2004
2002
1986
2011
2001
T H Agriculture & Nutrition, LLC
2008
2007
Todd Shipyards
1987
2010
Unarco Industries, Inc.
1982
2011
United States Lines
1986
2001
UNR Industries, Inc.
1982
USG Corp.
2001
MEALEYS
Company
Year
Utex Industries
2004
Wallace & Gale
1984
1983
Western Macarthur
2002
W.R. Grace Co.
2001
Yarway Corporation
2013
CHART 3:
COMPANY NAME, CASE NO., COURT,
PLAN STATUS & PUBLISHED DECISIONS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
ABB Lummus Global, Inc.
No. 06-10401-JKF
(Bankr. D. Del.)
Prepackaged plan of reorganization conrmed

by the bankruptcy court on June 29, 2006
and by the district court on July 21, 2006.
A-Best Products
No. 02-12734-JKF
(Bankr. D. Del.)
Plan conrmed by the bankruptcy court on

May 25, 2004 and by the district court on
June 7, 2004.
ACandS, Inc.
No. 02-12687 (Bankr.

D. Del.)
Plan denied conrmation by the bankruptcy

court on January 26, 2004. Debtors revised
second plan of reorganization approved by the
bankruptcy court on May 6, 2008; district
court afrmation order entered on June 27,
2008.
No. 13-11147 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y.)
Chapter 7 petition led April 12, 2013.
Amatex Corp.
No. 82-05220 (Bankr.

E.D. Pa.)

April 25, 1990.
Published Decisions
ACandS, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 435

F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2006); In re ACandS, Inc.,
462 B.R. 88 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011) (also
entered in the Armstrong, Combustion Engineering, Flintkote, Kaiser Aluminum, Owens
Corning, U.S. Mineral Products, USG, W.R.
Grace, Pittsburgh Corning, NARCO, and MidValley bankruptcy cases); In re ACandS, Inc.,
311 B.R. 36 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004); In re
ACandS, Inc., 297 B.R. 36 (Bankr. D. Del.
2003); In re ACandS, Inc., 297 B.R. 395
(Bankr. D. Del. 2003). See also In re Motions
for Access of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,
488 B.R. 281 (D. Del. 2013) (also entered in
the Armstrong, Combustion Engineering,
Flintkote, Kaiser Aluminum, Owens Corning,
USG, United States Mineral Products, and
W.R. Grace bankruptcy cases).
In re Amatex Corp., 755 F.2d 1034 (3d Cir.

1985); Amatex Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
(In re Amatex Corp.), 107 B.R. 856 (Bankr.
E.D. Pa. 1989), affd, 908 F.2d 961 (3d Cir.
1990); Amatex Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
(In re Amatex Corp.), 97 B.R. 220 (Bankr.
E.D. Pa.), affd sub nom. Amatex Corp. v.
Stonewall Ins. Co., 102 B.R. 411 (E.D. Pa.
1989); In re Amatex Corp., 37 B.R. 613 (E.D.
Pa. 1983).
21
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
American Shipbuilding Co.
No. 93-11552 (Bankr.

M.D. Fla.)

October 11, 1994.
A.P.I., Inc.
No. 05-30073 (Bankr.

D. Minn.)

December 6, 2005; conrmation order
afrmed by the district court on May 25,
2006; appeal to the Eighth Circuit (No. 062421) dismissed.
Faricy Law Firm v. A.P.I., Inc. Asbestos Settlement Trust (In re A.P.I., Inc.), 537 B.R. 902
(Bankr. D. Minn. 2015); In re A.P.I., Inc.,
331 B.R. 828 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2005), affd
sub nom. OneBeacon American Ins. Co. v.
A.P.I., Inc., 2006 WL 1473004 (D. Minn.
May 25, 2006); In re A.P.I., Inc., 324 B.R.
761 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2005).
No. 00-4471 (Bankr. D.

Del.)
Plan recommended for conrmation by

bankruptcy court on December 19, 2003;
conrmation denied by district court on
February 23, 2005; district courts order
denying conrmation afrmed by the Third
Circuit on December 29, 2005.
In re Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 432 F.3d

507 (3d Cir. 2005), affg In re Armstrong
World Indus., Inc., 320 B.R. 523 (D. Del.
2005); In re Kensington Intl Ltd., 368 F.3d
289 (3d Cir. 2004) (also applicable to the
Federal-Mogul, Owens Corning, USG Corp.,
and W.R. Grace bankruptcies); In re
Kensington Intl Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir.
2003) (also applicable to the Federal-Mogul,
Owens Corning, USG Corp., and W.R. Grace
bankruptcies); In re Armstrong World Indus.,
Inc., 348 B.R. 136 (D. Del. 2006); In re
Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 348 B.R. 111
(D. Del. 2006); In re Armstrong World Indus.,
Inc., 320 B.R. 523 (D. Del. 2005); In re
2011) (also entered in the Armstrong,
Combustion Engineering, Flintkote, Kaiser
Aluminum, Owens Corning, U.S. Mineral
Products, USG, W.R. Grace, Pittsburgh
Corning, NARCO, and Mid-Valley bankruptcy cases). See also In re Motions for Access of
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 488 B.R.
281 (D. Del. 2013) (also entered in the
ACandS, Combustion Engineering, Flintkote,
Kaiser Aluminum, Owens Corning, USG,
United States Mineral Products, and W.R.
Grace bankruptcy cases); Maertin v. Armstrong
World Indus., Inc., 241 F. Supp.2d 434
(D.N.J. 2002); Wise v. Travelers Indem. Co.,
192 F. Supp.2d 506 (N.D. W.Va. 2002).
Amended post-remand plan led February

21, 2006. District court entered an opinion
and order conrming the plan on August 15,
2006.
Published Decisions
Artra Group, Inc.
No. 02-21522 (Bankr.

N.D. Ill.)

January 25, 2007 and by the district court on
February 16, 2007.
In re Artra Group, Inc., 308 B.R. 858 (Bankr.

N.D. Ill. 2003); Ofcial Comm. Of Unsecured
Creditors of Artra Group, Inc. v. Artra Group,
Inc. (In re Artra Group, Inc.), 300 B.R. 699
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2003).
Asarco, LLC
No. 05-21207 (Bankr.

S.D. Tex.)
Two competing plans were presented to the

bankruptcy court during the conrmation
hearing: (i) the seventh amended plan of
reorganization of Debtors estranged parent,
Asarco, Inc., as modied on August 27, 2009;
and (ii) Debtors sixth amended plan of reorganization, as modied August 27, 2009.
Consideration of a third competing plan, led
by Harbinger Capital, a bondholder of Asarco
LLC, was abated on Harbingers motion. The
bankruptcy court conrmation hearing
concluded on August 28, 2009.
Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S.Ct.

2158 (2015); In re ASARCO, LLC, 751
F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2014), affd, Baker Botts
LLP v. ASARCO LLC, 2135 S.Ct. 2158
(2015); ASARCO, LLC v. Barclays Capital,
Inc. (In re ASARCO, LLC), 702 F.3d 250 (5th
Cir. 2012); ASARCO, Inc. v. Elliot Management (In re ASARCO, LLC), 650 F.3d 593
(5th Cir. 2011); United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, etc. Service Workers Intl Union
AFL-CIO v. Asarco Incorporated (In re
ASARCO LLC), 401 Fed. Appx. 914 (5th Cir.
2010); ASARCO LLC v. Baker Botts L.L.P. (In
re ASARCO LLC), 477 B.R. 661 (S.D. Tex.
2012); In re ASARCO LLC, 441 B.R. 813
(S.D. Tex. 2010), affd, ASARCO, Inc. v.
Elliot Management (In re ASARCO, LLC), 650
F.3d 593 (5th Cir. 2011); In re ASARCO
LLC, 513 B.R. 499 (S.D. Tex. 2012);
ASARCO, LLC v. Barclays Capital Inc. (In re
ASARCO LLC), 457 B.R. 575 (S.D. Tex.
On August 31, 2009, the bankruptcy judge

issued a report and recommendation recommending conrmation of the Parents plan.
Debtors appealed the report and recommendation to the District Court.
On September 10, 2009, Debtors led further
modications to their sixth plan of
22
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
reorganization. On September 24, 2009, the

bankruptcy judge issued a report and recommendation reiterating, in the face of Debtors
September 10 supplemental ling, that the
Parents plan should be conrmed. On
November 13, 2009, the district court entered
an order conrming the Parents plan. Appeals
to the Fifth Circuit were dismissed by that
court as equitably moot on November 12,
2010.
2011); In re ASARCO LLC, 420 B.R. 314

(S.D. Tex. 2009); ASARCO LLC v. Americas
Mining Corp., 419 B.R. 737 (S.D. Tex.
2009); ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining
Corp., 404 B.R. 150 (S.D. Tex. 2009);
ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp., 396
B.R. 278 (S.D. Tex. 2008); ASARCO LLC v.
Americas Mining Corp., 382 B.R. 49 (Bankr.
S.D. Tex. 2007). See also ASARCO LLC v.
Celanese Chemical Co., 792 F.3d 1203 (9th
Cir. 2015); ASARCO LLC v. Union Pac. R.
Co., 765 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2014); ASARCO
LLC v. Union Pac. R. Co., 755 F.3d 1183
(10th Cir. 2014); Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of the Interior, 623 F.3d 633 (9th
Cir. 2010).
Asbestos Claims Management

Corp.
No. 02-37124 (Bankr.

N.D. Tex.)

June 5, 2003.
In re Asbestos Claims Mgt. Corp., 294 B.R. 663

(N.D. Tex. 2003).
No. 00-10992 (Bankr.

E.D. La.)
Plan recommended for conrmation by the

bankruptcy court December 28, 2005,
conrmed by the district court January 17,
2006.
Caplin & Drysdale Chtd. v. Babcock & Wilcox

Co. (In re Babcock & Wilcox Co.), 526 F.3d
824 (5th Cir. 2008); Amer. Nuclear Insurers v.
The Babcock & Wilcox Co. (In re The Babcock
& Wilcox Co.), 69 Fed. Appx. 659 (5th Cir.
2003); Clyde Bergemann, Inc. v. The Babcock
& Wilcox Co. (In re The Babcock & Wilcox
Co.), 250 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 2001); In re
Babcock & Wilcox Co., 425 B.R. 266 (E.D.
La. 2010), vacating and remanding In re
Babcock & Wilcox Co., 413 B.R. 337 (Bankr.
E.D. La. 2009), vacated, 425 B.R. 266 (E.D.
La. 2010); The Babcock & Wilcox Co. v.
Southern Indiana Gas & Elec. Co. (In re The
Babcock & Wilcox Co.), 316 B.R. 62 (Bankr.
E.D. La. 2003); In re Babcock & Wilcox Co.,
274 B.R. 230 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2002); Wilcox
Constr. Co.. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (In re
Babcock & Wilcox Co.), 250 F.3d 955 (5th
Cir. 2001). See also Babcock & Wilcox Co. v.
McGriff, Seibels & Williams, Inc., 235 F.R.D.
632 (E.D. La. 2006).
Brauer Supply Co.
No. 05-51754 (Bankr.

E.D. Mo.)
Plan conrmed by bankruptcy court on

December 8, 2006 and conrmed by the
district court on January 5, 2007.
Budd Company
No. 14-11873 (Bankr.

N.D. Ill.)
Chapter 11 petition led March 31, 2014.

Ninth Amended Chapter 11 Plan conrmed
by the bankruptcy court on June 27, 2016.
Burns & Roe
No. 00-41610 (Bankr.

D.N.J.)
Plan conrmed by the district court on

February 23, 2009.
Carey Canada, Inc.
Nos. 90-10016-8B1,
90-10017-8B1 (Bankr.
M.D. Fla.)
Joint plan of reorganization with Celotex

Corp. conrmed by the bankruptcy court on
December 6, 1996 and by the district court
on March 4, 1997.
See Celotex-related decisions.
Celotex Corp.
Nos. 90-10016-8B1,
90-10017-8B1 (Bankr.
M.D. Fla.)
Joint plan of reorganization with Carey

Canada conrmed by the bankruptcy court
on December 6, 1996 and by the district
court on March 4, 1997.
Michigan State Univ. v. Asbestos Settlement

Trust (In re Celotex Corp.), 700 F.3d 1262
(11th Cir. 2012); Property Damage Advisory
Comm. v. Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust (In
re Celotex Corp.), 497 Fed. Appx. 896 (11th
Cir. 2012); Southern Wesleyan Univ. v.
Asbestos Settlement Trust (In re Celotex Corp.),
496 Fed. Appx. 3 (11th Cir. 2012); Claremont
McKenna College v. Asbestos Settlement Trust
(In re Celotex Corp.), 613 F.3d 1318 (11th
In re The Budd Co., Inc., 550 B.R. 407

(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2016); In re The Budd Co.,
Inc., 540 B.R. 353 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2015); In
re The Budd Co., Inc., 512 B.R. 910 (Bankr.
N.D. Ill. 2014).
23
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
Cir. 2010); Asbestos Settlement Trust v.
Continental Ins. Co. (In re Celotex Corp.), 299
Fed. Appx. 850 (11th Cir. 2008); Asbestos
Settlement Trust v. City of New York (In re
Celotex Corp.), 487 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.
2007); Fibreboard Corp. v. Celotex Corp. (In re
Celotex Corp.), 472 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir.
2006); Dana Corp. v. Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust, 251 F.3d 1107 (6th Cir. 2001);
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Rapid Am. Corp. (In re
Celotex Corp.), 124 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 1997);
Hillsborough Holdings Corp. v. Celotex Corp.,
123 B.R. 1018 (M.D. Fla. 1990); Southern
Wesleyan Univ. v. Andrews (In re Celotex
Corp.), 427 B.R. 909 (Bankr. M.D. Fla.
2010), affd, 496 Fed. Appx. 3 (11th Cir.
2012); Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Anderson
Mem. Hosp. (In re Celotex Corp.), 380 B.R.
895 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2008); In re Celotex
Corp., 380 B.R. 623 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007);
Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Port Auth. Of
NY & NJ (In re Celotex Corp.), 377 B.R. 345
(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006); Celotex Corp. v.
Allstate Ins. Co. (In re Celotex Corp.), 336 B.R.
833 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005); Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Utah (In re Celotex Corp.), 330
B.R. 815 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005); In re
Celotex Corp., 289 B.R. 460 (Bankr. M.D.
Fla. 2003); In re Celotex Corp., 245 B.R. 174
(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000); In re Celotex Corp.,
224 B.R. 853 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998); In re
Celotex Corp., 204 B.R. 586 (M.D. Fla.
1996); Celotex Corp. v. AIU Ins. Co. (In re
Celotex Corp.), 187 B.R. 746 (M.D. Fla.
1995); In re Celotex Corp., 152 B.R. 667
152 B.R. 661 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1993); In re
Celotex Corp., 149 B.R. 997 (Bankr. M.D.
Fla. 1993); In re Celotex Corp., 140 B.R. 912
123 B.R. 917 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991);
Hillsborough Holdings Corp. v. Celotex Corp.
(In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.), 123 B.R.
1004 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990).
C.E. Thurston
No. 03-75932-SCS
(Bankr. E.D. Va.)
Plan conrmed by the district court March

30, 2006.
Chicago Fire Brick
No. 01-45483 (Bankr.

N.D. Cal.)
Plan conrmed by the bankruptcy court

September 7, 2012.
No. 08-48541 (Bankr.

E.D. Mo.)
On July 13, 2011, the bankruptcy court

issued an order conrming the First Amended
Plan and recommending that the district court
issue the 524(g) injunctions. On August 19,
2011, the district court entered an order
issuing the 524(g) injunctions.
No. 03-10495 (Bankr.

D. Del.)

June 23, 2003 and by the district court on
August 13, 2003; conrmation order vacated
by the Third Circuit on December 2, 2004.
Modied post-remand plan conrmed by the
bankruptcy court on December 19, 2005;
district court order afrming the bankruptcy
courts conrmation order entered on
March 1, 2006.
24
In re Combustion Engg, Inc., 391 F.3d 190

(3d Cir. 2004); Certain Underwriters at
Lloyds, London v. ABB Lummus Global, Inc.,
337 B.R. 22 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); TIG Ins. Co. v.
Combustion Engg, Inc. (In re Combustion
Engg, Inc.), 366 F. Supp.2d 224 (D. Del.
2005); In re ACandS, Inc., 462 B.R. 88
(Bankr. D. Del. 2011) (also entered in the
Armstrong, Flintkote, Kaiser Aluminum, Owens
Grace, Pittsburgh Corning, NARCO, and MidValley bankruptcy cases); In re Combustion
Engg, Inc., 295 B.R. 459 (Bankr. D. Del.
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
2003), revd, In re Combustion Engg, Inc., 391
F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2004); Pre-Petition Comm.
of Select Asbestos Claimants v. Combustion
Engg, Inc. (In re Combustion Engg, Inc.), 292
B.R. 515 (Bankr. D. Del. 2003). See also In re
Motions for Access of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 488 B.R. 281 (D. Del. 2013) (also
entered in the ACandS, Armstrong, Flintkote,
Kaiser Aluminum, Owens Corning, USG,
United States Mineral Products, and W.R.
Grace bankruptcy cases).
Congoleum Corp.
No. 03-51524 (Bankr.

D.N.J.)
On February 1, 2007, the bankruptcy court

docketed opinions and orders nding debtors
tenth plan and the CNA insurers second plan
unconrmable as a matter of law. On June 5,
2008, the bankruptcy court issued an opinion
nding an amended proposed plan of reorganization led on February 5, 2008 by debtors,
future claimants representative, and the ofcial bondholders committee the plan
unconrmable as a matter of law. On
February 26, 2009, the bankruptcy court
issued an opinion nding an amended joint
plan led on November 14, 2008 by debtors,
the ofcial bondholders committee, and the
ofcial committee of asbestos claimants
unconrmable as a matter of law, and stating
that the Chapter 11 case would be dismissed
as of March 18, 2009. The bankruptcy court
stayed its dismissal order pending appeal on
March 3, 2009.
Century Indem. Co. v. Congoleum Corp. (In re

Congoleum Corp.), 426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir.
2005); In re Congoleum Corp., 414 B.R. 44
(D.N.J. 2009); Baron & Budd, P.C. v. Unsecured Asbestos Claimants Comm. (In re
Congoleum Corp.), 321 B.R. 147 (D.N.J.
2005); In re Congoleum Corp., 362 B.R. 198
(Bankr. D.N.J. 2007); In re Congoleum Corp.,
362 B.R. 167 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2007).
On August 17, 2009, the district court

entered an order reversing in part and
afrming in part the bankruptcy courts order
denying conrmation of the plan, reversing
and vacating the bankruptcy courts order
dismissing the Chapter 11 case, and withdrawing the reference as to all future
proceedings in the bankruptcy case. On
September 24, 2009, certain insurers led an
appeal of the district courts order. On
October 5, 2009, the district court issued an
opinion and order refusing to certify the
appeal for interlocutory review.
On June 7, 2010, the District Court
conrmed the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization led by Debtors, the ACC,
the FCR, and the ofcial committee of
bondholders on March 11, 2010. An appeal
to the Third Circuit by certain claimants (No.
10-3011) was dismissed as equitably moot
on October 7, 2010.
No. 13-37149 (Bankr.

D.N.J.)
Chapter 11 plan of liquidation conrmed by

the bankruptcy court on June 5, 2014. Appeal
by U.S. Trustee resolved by consent, and
amended conrmation order entered July 28,
2014.
C.P. Hall Company
No. 11-26443 (Bankr.

N.D. Ill.)
Petition led June 24, 2011. Converted to

Chapter 7 on October 22, 2012.
In re C.P. Hall Co. (Appeal of Columbia Cas.

Co.), 750 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2014); Shipley v.
Cooney & Conway Creditors (In re C.P. Hall
Co.), 506 B.R. 751 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2014).
Dana Corporation
No. 06-10354 (BRL)

(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)
Plan conrmed by bankruptcy court

December 26, 2007; appeals by certain
asbestos claimants dismissed by the district
court on September 30, 2008; remaining
Jasco Tools, Inc. v. Dana Corp. (In re Dana

Corp.), 574 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2009); Ad Hoc
Comm. Of Personal Injury Asbestos Claimants v.
Dana Corp. (In re Dana Corp.), 412 B.R. 53
25
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
appeal by one asbestos claimant dismissed by

the Second Circuit on December 23, 2008.
(S.D.N.Y. 2008); In re Dana Corp., 379 B.R.

449 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); In re Dana Corp., 390
B.R. 100 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008); In re Dana
Corp., 367 B.R. 409 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007);
In re Dana Corp., 358 B.R. 567 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Dana Corp., 351 B.R.
96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Dana Corp.,
350 B.R. 144 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re
Dana Corp., 344 B.R. 35 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2006).
Delaware Insulations Distributors
No. 89-00295 (Bankr.

D. Del.)

September 9, 1992.
No. 8:13-bk-19741-ES
(Bankr. C.D. Cal.)
Chapter 7 petition led January 25, 2013.
No. 09-14415-MFW
(Bankr. D. Del.)
On June 27, 2012, the bankruptcy court

issued an order conrming the plan and
recommending that the district court issue the
524(g) injunction. On August 2, 2012, the
district court issued an order afrming the
bankruptcy courts conrmation order and
issuing the 524(g) injunction.
Eagle, Inc.
No. 15-12437
Chapter 11 petition led September 22,

2015. Plan of reorganization led
September 13, 2016.
Eagle-Picher Industries
No. 91-10100 (Bankr.

S.D. Ohio) No. 0512601 (Bankr. S.D.
Ohio)
Plan conrmed by the bankruptcy and district

courts on November 18, 1996.
E.J. Bartells Co., Inc.
No. 00-10390 (Bankr.

W.D. Wash.)

February 14, 2001.
No. 14-10979 (CSS)
Petition led April 29, 2014. Plan led

April 14, 2015. Amended plans led July 23,
August 3, August 10, September 18,
September 21, and December 1, 2015.
Disclosure statement approved September 21,
2015. Plan conrmed by the bankruptcy
court on December 7, 2015.
26
Company led a new bankruptcy petition on

April 11, 2005. Plan conrmed by the bankruptcy court on June 28, 2006.
Caradon Doors & Windows, Inc. v. EaglePicher Indus., Inc. (In re Eagle-Picher Indus.,
Inc.), 447 F.3d 461 (3d Cir. 2006); American
Imaging Services, Inc. v. Eagle-Picher Indus.,
Inc. (In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc.), 963 F.2d
855 (6th Cir. 1992); In re Eagle-Picher Holdings, Inc., 345 B.R. 860 (S.D. Ohio 2006);
Ofcial Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. EaglePicher Indus., Inc. (In re Eagle-Picher Indus.,
Inc.), 169 B.R. 130 (S.D. Ohio 1994); In re
Eagle-Picher Indus., 203 B.R. 256 (Bankr.
S.D. Ohio 1996), affd, 1996 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 17160 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 1996),
affd without op., 172 F.3d 48 (6th Cir. 1998);
In re Eagle-Picher Indus., 189 B.R. 681
(Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1995), affd, 1996 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 22742 (S.D. Ohio 1996); In re
Eagle-Picher Indus., 144 B.R. 69 (Bankr. S.D.
Ohio 1992).
Marathon Asset Mgt., LP v. Wilmington Trust,

N.A. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 548
B.R. 790 (D. Del. 2016); Delaware Trust
Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co.
LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527
B.R. 160 (D. Del. 2015); Delaware Trust
Co. v. Computershare Trust Co. (In re Energy
Future Holdings Corp.), 551 B.R. 550 (Bankr.
D. Del. 2016); In re Energy Future Holdings
Corp., 540 B.R. 109 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015);
In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 540 B.R.
96 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015); Computershare
Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate
Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings
Corp.), 539 B.R. 723 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015);
Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future
Holdings Corp.), 533 B.R. 106 (Bankr. D.
Del. 2015); Energy Future Intermediate
Holding Co. LLC v. UMB Bankr, N.A. (In re
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 531 B.R. 499
(Bankr. D. Del. 2015); Delaware Trust Co. v.
Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC
(In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R.
178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015); In re Energy
Future Holdings Corp., 522 B.R. 520 (Bankr.
D. Del. 2015).
Federal-Mogul
No. 01-10578 (Bankr.

D. Del.)

November 8, 2007; conrmation order
afrmed by district court on November 15,
2007.
Opinion and order declining conrmation of
alternative Plan B entered by the bankruptcy
court on September 30, 2008.
Flintkote Co.
No. 04-11300 (JKF)

(Bankr. D. Del.)

on July 10, 2014. The district courts afrmation order was been appealed to the Third
Circuit by Imperial Tobacco. On February 9,
2015, Plan Proponents submitted a modied
plan that incorporates a settlement with
Imperial Tobacco. The bankruptcy court
conrmed that modied plan on August 10,
2015. The district court adopted and afrmed
the bankruptcy courts conrmation order on
August 13, 2015.
Barraford v. T&N Ltd., 778 F.3d 258 (1st Cir.

2015); In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc., 684
F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2012); In re Kensington Intl
Ltd., 368 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2004) (also
applicable to the Armstrong, Owens Corning,
USG Corp., and W.R. Grace bankruptcies); In
re Kensington Intl Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir.
2003) (also applicable to the Armstrong,
Owens Corning, USG Corp., and W.R. Grace
bankruptcies); In re Federal-Mogul Global,
Inc., 300 F.3d 368 (3d Cir. 2002); PepsiAmericas, Inc. v. Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (In
re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc.), 526 B.R. 567
(D. Del. 2015), affg In re Federal-Mogul
Global, Inc., 438 B.R. 767 (Bankr. D. Del.
2010); In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 402
B.R. 625 (D. Del. 2009), affg In re FederalMogul Global, Inc., 385 B.R. 560 (Bankr. D.
Del. 2008); In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc.,
330 B.R. 133 (D. Del. 2005); In re FederalMogul Global, Inc., 438 B.R. 787 (Bankr. D.
Del. 2010), affd, PepsiAmericas, Inc. v.
Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (In re FederalMogul Global, Inc.), 526 B.R. 567 (D. Del.
2015); In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 411
B.R. 148 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008); In re FederalMogul Global, Inc., 385 B.R. 560 (Bankr. D.
Del. 2008); In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc.,
282 B.R. 301 (Bankr. D. Del.), mandamus
denied, 300 F.3d 368 (3d Cir. 2002), cert.
denied, 537 U.S. 1148 (2003). See also
Federal-Mogul U.S. Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust v. Continental Cas. Co., 666 F.3d 384
(6th Cir. 2011); Arnold v. Garlock, 278 F.3d
426 (5th Cir. 2001).
Flintkote Co. v. Aviva PLC, 769 F.3d 215 (3d
Cir. 2014); 8 E. Frederick Place, LLC v. The
Flintkote Co. (In re The Flintkote Co.), 533
B.R. 887 (D. Del. 2015); Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd. v. The Flintkote Co. (In re The
Flintkote Co.), 526 B.R. 515 (D. Del. 2014),
affg In re Flintkote Co., 486 B.R. 99 (Bankr.
D. Del. 2012); Imperial Tobacco Canada
Ltd. v. The Flintkote Co. (In re The Flintkote
Co.), 471 B.R. 95 (D. Del. 2012); Hopkins v.
Plant Insulation Co., 342 B.R. 703 (D. Del.
2006); Certain Underwriters at Lloyds,
London v. Future Asbestos Claims Representative (In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp.), 327 B.R.
554 (D. Del. 2005) (consolidated with
London Mkt. Ins. Cos. v. Baron & Budd PC (In
re The Flintkote Co.); In re Flintkote Co., 486
B.R. 99 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012), affd, Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd. v. The Flintkote Co. (In
re The Flintkote Co.), 526 B.R. 515 (D. Del.
2014); In re Flintkote Co., 475 B.R. 400
(Bankr. D. Del. 2012), affd, 533 B.R. 887
(D. Del. 2015); In re ACandS, Inc., 462 B.R.
88 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011) (also entered in the
Armstrong, Combustion Engineering, Flintkote,
Kaiser Aluminum, Owens Corning, U.S.
27
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
Mineral Products, USG, W.R. Grace, Pittsburgh Corning, NARCO, and Mid-Valley
bankruptcy cases). See also In re Motions for
Access of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,
the ACandS, Armstrong, Combustion Engineering, Kaiser Aluminum, Owens Corning,
USG, United States Mineral Products, and
W.R. Grace bankruptcy cases); Flintkote Co. v.
Genl Acc. Assur. Co., 480 F. Supp.2d 1167
(N.D. Cal. 2007); Flintkote Co. v. Genl Acc.
Assur. Co., 410 F. Supp.2d 875 (N.D. Cal.
2006); Hopkins v. Plant Insulation Co., 349
B.R. 805 (N.D. Cal. 2006); Hopkins v. Plant
Insulation Co., 342 B.R. 703 (D. Del. 2006).
No. 85-B-05061
(Bankr. N.D. Ill.)
Plan of liquidation conrmed by bankruptcy

court on May 16, 1995.
In re Forty-Eight Insulations, 115 F.3d 1294

(7th Cir. 1997); In re Forty-Eight Insulations,
Inc., 133 B.R. 973 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991),
affd, 149 B.R. 860 (N.D. Ill. 1992); In re
Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 109 B.R. 315
(N.D. Ill. 1989).
Fuller-Austin Insulation Co.
No. 98-02038 (Bankr.

D. Del.)
Plan conrmed by the district court, sitting in

bankruptcy, on November 13, 1998.
See Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Highlands

Ins. Co., 135 Cal. App.4th 958, 38 Cal.
Rptr.3d 716 (2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct.
248 (2006).
Garlock Sealing Technologies

LLC
No. 10-31607 (Bankr.

W.D.N.C.)
Petition led June 5, 2010. Co-debtors are

The Anchor Packing Company and Garrison
Litigation Management Group Ltd. Debtors
led First Amended Plan of Reorganization
on May 29, 2014. On May 20, 2016, the
debtors led a plan of reorganization for
themselves and Oldco, LLC, a company that
will be a successor by merger to Coltec
Industries LLC and that is expected to soon
commence its own Chapter 11 case. On
June 21, 2016 and then again on July 29,
2016, the debtors and Oldco led a modied joint plan.
In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, Inc., 504

B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014). See In re
Motions for Access of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 488 B.R. 281 (D. Del. 2013).
Gatke Corp.
No. 87-30308 (Bankr.

N.D. Ind.)
Second amended plan of liquidation led

August 17, 1989; case converted to Chapter 7
on August 9, 1991.
General Motors Corp. (n/k/a

Motors Liquidation Co.)
No. 09-50026 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y.)
Petition led June 1, 2009. Asbestos Claimants Committee appointed March 2, 2010.
Debtors motion for appointment of an FCR
granted April 8, 2010. Amended Joint
Chapter 11 Plan led December 7, 2010.
Motion to estimate Debtors asbestos liabilities led November 15, 2010. Stipulation
estimating Debtors asbestos liability at $625
million led January 21, 2011. Bankruptcy
court conrmed the plan on March 29, 2011.
28
In re Motors Liquidation Corp., __ F.3d __,

2016 WL 3766237 (2d Cir. 2016); Castillo v.
General Motors Corp. (In re Motors Liquidation
Co.), 500 B.R. 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); U.S.
Dept of the Treasury v. Ofcial Comm. Of
Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Co.,
475 B.R. 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); In re Motors
Liquidation Co., 439 B.R. 339 (S.D.N.Y.
2010); In re Motors Liquidation Co., 436 B.R.
752 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re General Motors
Corp., 430 B.R. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re
General Motors Corp., 428 B.R. 43 (S.D.N.Y.
2010); Motors Liquidation Company Avoidance Action Trust v. JPMorgan Case Bank,
N.A. (In re Motors Liquidation Co.), 552 B.R.
253 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016); In re Motors
Liquidation Co., 549 B.R. 607 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2016); In re Motors Liquidation Co.,
Motors Liquidation Co., 539 B.R. 676 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2015); In re Motors Liquidation
Co.), 536 B.R. 54 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015); In
re Motors Liquidation Co., 534 B.R. 538
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015); In re Motors Liquidation Co., 533 B.R. 46 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
354 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015), affd in part,
revd in part, vacated in part, and remanded, In
re Motors Liquidation Corp., __ F.3d __, 2016
WL 3766237 (2d Cir. 2016); In re Motors
S.D.N.Y. 2015), affd in part, revd in part,
vacated in part, and remanded, In re Motors
Liquidation Corp., __ F.3d __, 2016 WL
3766237 (2d Cir. 2016); In re Motors Liquidation Co., 522 B.R. 13 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
377 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014), affd in part,
revd in part, vacated in part, and remanded, In
re Motors Liquidation Corp., __ F.3d __, 2016
WL 3766237 (2d Cir. 2016); In re Motors
460 B.R. 603 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011),
vacated, 475 B.R. 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); In re
Motors Liquidation Co., 447 B.R. 150 (Bankr.
General Motors Corp., 409 B.R. 24 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2009); In re General Motors Corp.,
407 B.R. 463 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009), affd,
428 B.R. 43 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) and 430 B.R.
65 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
No. 15-23704 (Bankr.

W.D. Pa.)
Chapter 11 petition led October 8, 2015.
G-I Holdings
Nos. 01-30135 [RG]

and 01-38790 [RG]
(Bankr. D.N.J.)
Order conrming the plan jointly issued by

the bankruptcy court and district court on
November 12, 2009. On December 17,
2009, after Debtor claimed that it substantially consummated its plan, the Third Circuit
issued a stay pending appeal (No. 09-4296).
The appeal was dismissed on December 28,
2011 pursuant to a stipulation between the
Debtor and the IRS.
In re G-I Holdings, Inc., 755 F.3d 195 (3d Cir.

2014); G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co.,
586 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2009); Ofcial Comm.
of Asbestos Claimants v. G-I Holdings, Inc. (In
re G-I Holdings, Inc.), 385 F.3d 313 (3d Cir.
2004); In re G-I Holdings Inc., 420 B.R. 216
(D.N.J. 2009); Ofcial Comm. of Asbestos
Claimants of G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Heyman,
359 B.R. 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Ofcial
Comm. of Asbestos Claimants of G-I Holdings,
Inc. v. Heyman, 342 B.R. 416 (S.D.N.Y.
2006); In re G-I Holdings, Inc., 380 F.
Supp.2d 469 (D.N.J. 2005); Ofcial Comm.
of Asbestos Claimants v. Bank of N.Y. (In re G-I
Holdings, Inc.), 318 B.R. 66 (D.N.J. 2004),
affd, 122 Fed. Appx. 554 (3d Cir. 2004);
Ofcial Comm. of Asbestos Claimants of G-I
Holdings, Inc. v. Heyman, 306 B.R. 746
(S.D.N.Y. 2004); In re G-I Holdings, Inc., 295
B.R. 502 (D.N.J. 2003); Ofcial Comm. of
Asbestos Claimants v. G-I Holdings, Inc. (In re
G-I Holdings, Inc.), 295 B.R. 211 (D.N.J.
2003); In re G-I Holdings, Inc.), 295 B.R. 222
(D.N.J. 2003); In re G-I Holdings, Inc.), 295
B.R. 502 (D.N.J. 2003); In re G-I Holdings,
Inc., 218 F.R.D. 428 (D.N.J. 2003); Ofcial
Comm. Of Asbestos Claimants of G-I Holdings v.
Heyman, 277 B.R. 20 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); In re
G-I Holdings, Inc., 477 B.R. 542 (Bankr.
D.N.J. 2012); In re G-I Holdings, Inc., 472
B.R. 263 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2012); In re G-I
Holdings, Inc., 443 B.R. 645 (Bankr. D.N.J.
2010); Ofcial Comm. Of Asbestos Claimants v.
Bldg. Matls Corp. of America (In re G-I Holdings, Inc.), 338 B.R. 232 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2006);
G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Bennet (In re G-I Holdings,
Inc.), 328 B.R. 691 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2005); In
re G-I Holdings, Inc., 327 B.R. 730 (Bankr.
29
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
D.N.J. 2005); In re G-I Holdings, 323 B.R.
583 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2005); G-I Holdings, Inc.
v. Those Parties Listed On Exhibit A (In re G-I
Holdings, Inc.), 313 B.R. 612 (Bankr. D.N.J.
2004); In re G-I Holdings, Inc.), 308 B.R. 196
(Bankr. D.N.J. 2004); In re G-I Holdings, Inc.,
292 B.R. 804 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2003); G-I
Holdings, Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co. (In re G-I
Holdings, Inc.), 278 B.R. 725 (Bankr. D.N.J.
2002); G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. &
Indem. Co. (In re G-I Holdings, Inc.), 278 B.R.
376 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2002).
GIT/Harbison-Walker/AP Green
No. 02-21626 (Bankr.

W.D. Pa.)
Plan approved by the bankruptcy court on

afrmed by the district court on July 25,
2008; conrmation order vacated by the
Third Circuit and remanded on May 4, 2011.
Following another conrmation hearing, the
bankruptcy court conrmed the plan again on
February 13, 2013. That order was afrmed
by the district court on March 11, 2013.
Harnischfeger Corp.
No. 99-02171 (Bankr.

D. Del.)

May 18, 2001.
No. 12-34186 (Bankr.

W.D. Ky.)
Amended plan of liquidation conrmed by

the bankruptcy court on December 31, 2014.
No. 08-27822-MS
(Bankr. D.N.J.)
Petition led August 22, 2008 in the Western

District of Pennsylvania. Transferred to the
District of New Jersey on September 18,
2008. On December 22, 2009, the bankruptcy court recommended conrmation of
Hercules plan of reorganization. On
January 6, 2010, the district court entered
an order conrming the plan.
Hillsborough Holdings
No. 89-09715 (Bankr.

M.D. Fla.)

March 2, 1995.
30
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Fitzpatrick (In

re Global Indus. Techs., Inc.), 645 F.3d 201
(3d Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 551 (2011);
Global Indus. Techs., Inc. v. Ash Trucking Co.
(In re Global Indus. Techs., Inc.), 375 B.R. 155
(Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2007); In re Global Indus.
Techs., 344 B.R. 382 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.
2006); Global Indus. Techs., Inc. v. Ash
Trucking Co. (In re Global Indus. Techs., Inc.),
333 B.R. 251 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2005);
Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. v. ACE
Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (In re Global Indus.
Techs., Inc.), 303 B.R. 753 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.
2004), vacated in part, modied in part by In
re Global Indus. Techs., Inc., 2004 WL
555418 (W.D. Pa. Feb 3, 2004). See also York
Linings Intl, Inc. v. Harbison-Walker Refractories Co., 839 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. App. 2005).
In re Joy Global, Inc., 423 B.R. 445 (D. Del.
2010); In re Joy Global, Inc., 381 B.R. 603 (D.
Del. 2007); In re Joy Global, Inc., 346 B.R. 659
(D. Del. 2006)appeal dismissed, 257 Fed. Appx.
539 (3d Cir. 2007); In re Harnischfeger Indus.,
Inc., 270 B.R. 188 (D. Del. 2001), vacated in
part and remanded, 80 Fed. Appx. 286 (3d Cir.
Jul. 2, 2003); In re Harnischfeger Indus., Inc.,
246 B.R. 421 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2000).
In re Hillsborough Holding Corp., 127 F.3d

1398 (11th Cir. 1997); In re Hillsborough
Holding Corp., 116 F.3d 1391 (11th Cir.
1997); Walter Industries, Inc. v. Solutia, Inc.
(In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.), 325 B.R.
334 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005); Cavazos v.
Mid-State Trust II (In re Hillsborough Holdings
Corp.), 267 B.R. 882 (Bankr. M.D. Fla.
2001); Walter v. Celotex Corp. (In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.), 197 B.R. 372
(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1996); In re Hillsborough
Holdings Corp., 197 B.R. 366 (Bankr. M.D.
Fla. 1996); Hillsborough Holdings Corp. v.
Celotex Corp., 123 B.R. 1018 (M.D. Fla.
1990); Hillsborough Holdings Corp. v. Celotex
Corp. (In re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.), 123
B.R. 1004 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990).
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
H.K. Porter Co.
No. 91-468 WWB

(Bankr. W.D. Pa.)
Plan conrmed by the district court on

June 25, 1998.
Travelers Ins. Co. v. H.K. Porter Co., 45 F.3d

737 (3d Cir. 1995); Continental Cas. Co. v.
H.K. Porter Co. (In re H.K. Porter Co.), 379
B.R. 272 (W.D. Pa. 2007), affg In re H.K.
Porter Co., 358 B.R. 231 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.
2006); Locks v. U.S. Trustee, 157 B.R. 89
(W.D. Pa. 1993); In re H.K. Porter Co., 183
B.R. 96 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1995); In re H.K.
Porter Co., 156 B.R. 16 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.
1993).
Insul Co.
No. 02-43909 (Bankr.

N.D. Ohio)
Chapter 7 case; petition led September 4,

2002; no-asset report led May 18, 2005; case
closed June 7, 2005.
No. 03-13475 (Bankr.

W.D. La.)
Chapter 11 voluntary petition led September 19,

2003. On motion of one of debtors insurers,
case dismissed on June 19, 2006.
Nos. 82 B 11656 [BLR]

through 82 B 11676
[BLR] (S.D.N.Y.,
E.D.N.Y.)

December 22, 1986 and afrmed by the
district court on July 15, 1987.
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137

(2009); Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Chubb
Indem. Ins. Co. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.),
600 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131
S.Ct. 644 (U.S. 2010); Johns-Manville
Corp. v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co. (In re JohnsManville Corp.), 517 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2008),
revd, 557 U.S. 137 (2009); The Asbestos
Personal Injury Plaintiffs v. Travelers Indem.
Co. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 476 F.3d
118 (2d Cir. 2007); State Govt Creditors
Comm. for Prop. Damage Claims v. McKay (In
re Johns-Manville Corp.), 920 F.2d 121 (2d
Cir. 1990); Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp., 843
F.2d 636 (2d Cir. 1988); MacArthur Co. v.
Johns-Manville Corp. (In re Johns-Manville
Corp.), 837 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 868 (1988); In re Comm. of
Asbestos-Related Litigants, 749 F.2d 3 (2d Cir.
1984); In re Johns-Manville Corp., 845 F.
Supp.2d 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), revd, No. 121094 (2d Cir., July 22, 2014); The Bogdan
Law Firm v. Marsh, SUA (In re Johns-Manville
Corp.), 551 B.R. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2016);
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Common Law Settlement Counsel (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 449
B.R. 31 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); In re JohnsManville Corp., 340 B.R. 49 (S.D.N.Y.
2006), revd, 517 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 2008),
revd, 557 U.S. 137 (2009), on remand, 600
F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010); In re Johns-Manville
Corp., 68 B.R. 618 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986),
affd, 78 B.R. 407 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), affd sub
nom. Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp., 843 F.2d
636 (2d Cir. 1988); Albero v. Johns-Manville
Corp. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 68 B.R.
155, (S.D.N.Y. 1986); United States v. JohnsManville Corp., 63 B.R. 600 (S.D.N.Y.
1986); Manville Corp. v. Equity Sec. Holders
Comm. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 60 B.R.
842, 845 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), revd, 801 F.2d 60
(2d Cir. 1986); In re Johns-Manville Corp., 52
B.R. 940 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); In re JohnsManville Corp., 45 B.R. 827 (S.D.N.Y.
1984); Roberts v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In re
Johns-Manville Corp.), 45 B.R. 823 (S.D.N.Y.
1984); In re Johns-Manville Corp., 42 B.R.
651 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); In re Johns-Manville
Corp., 40 B.R. 219 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), affg
Johns-Manville Corp. v. Asbestos Litig. Group
(In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 26 B.R. 420
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983), and GAF Corp. v.
31
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
Corp.), 26 B.R. 405 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983);
In re Johns-Manville Corp., 39 B.R. 998
(S.D.N.Y. 1984); Commercial Union Ins.
Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In re JohnsManville Corp.), 31 B.R. 965 (S.D.N.Y.
1983); In re Johns-Manville Corp., 552 B.R.
221 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016); In re JohnsManville Corp., 534 B.R. 553 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2015), affd in part and revd in part,
551 B.R. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); In re JohnsManville Corp., 440 B.R. 604 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2010), revd, 845 F. Supp.2d 584
(S.D.N.Y. 2012), revd, No. 12-1094 (2d
Cir., July 22, 2014); Johns-Manville Corp. v.
Colorado Ins. Guar. Assn, 91 B.R. 225 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 1988); In re Johns-Manville Corp.,
68 B.R. 618 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986);
Committee of Asbestos-Related Litigants v.
Corp.), 60 B.R. 612 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986);
In re Johns-Manville Corp., 36 B.R. 743
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984); Johns-Manville Corp. v.
Asbestos Litig. Group (In re Johns-Manville Corp.),
33 B.R. 254 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983); Findley v.
Falise (In re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts
Asbestos Litig.), 878 F. Supp. 473 (E. &
S.D.N.Y. 1995), affd in part, revd in part, 78
F.3d 764 (2d Cir. 1996); Findley v. Falise (In re
Johns-Manville Corp.), 982 F.2d 721 (2d Cir.
1992). See also Volkswagen of America, Inc. v.
Superior Court, 139 Cal. App.4th 1481 (2006);
Findley v. Trustees of the Manville Personal Injury
Settlement Trust (In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos
Litig.), 237 F. Supp.2d 297 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2002); In re Davis, 730 F.2d 176 (5th Cir.
1984) (per curiam).
JT Thorpe Co.
No. 02-41487-H5-11
(Bankr. S.D. Tex.)

January 17, 2003 and by the district court on
January 30, 2003; following appeal to the
Fifth Circuit and remand by the Fifth Circuit
after oral argument but before any ruling, plan
re-conrmed by the bankruptcy court on
March 3, 2004 and by the district court on
March 3, 2004.
JT Thorpe, Inc.
No. LA02-14216-BB
(Bankr. C.D. Cal.)

September 6, 2005 and by the district court
on January 17, 2006.
Kaiser Aluminum Corp.
No. 02-10429 (Bankr.

D. Del.)

February 6, 2006 and by the district court on
May 11, 2006.
32
In re JT Thorpe Co., 308 B.R. 782 (Bankr.

S.D. Tex. 2003).
In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 456 F.3d 328

(3d Cir. 2006); In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp.,
386 Fed. Appx. 201 (3d Cir. 2010), vacating
and remanding Moss Landing Commercial
Park, LLC v. Kaiser Aluminum Corp. (In re
Kaiser Aluminum Corp.), 399 B.R. 596 (D.
Del. 2009); Law Debenture Trust Co. of New
York v. Kaiser Aluminum Corp. (In re Kaiser
Aluminum Corp.), 380 B.R. 344 (D. Del.
2008); Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Clark
Cty. v. Kaiser Aluminum Corp. (In re Kaiser
2007); In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 343 B.R.
88 (D. Del. 2006); Law Debenture Trust
Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum Corp. (In re Kaiser
Aluminum Corp.), 339 B.R. 91 (D. Del. 2006);
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v.
Future Asbestos Claims Representative (In
re Kaiser Aluminum Corp.), 327 B.R. 554 (D.
Del. 2005); Safety Natl Cas. Corp. v. Kaiser
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
Aluminum & Chem. Corp. (In re Kaiser
2003); In re ACandS, Inc., 462 B.R. 88 (Bankr.
D. Del. 2011) (also entered in the Armstrong,
Products, USG, W.R. Grace, Pittsburgh Corning,
NARCO, and Mid-Valley bankruptcy cases).
See also In re Motions for Access of Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC, 488 B.R. 281 (D.
Del. 2013) (also entered in the ACandS,
Owens Corning, USG, United States Mineral
Products, and W.R. Grace bankruptcy cases);
Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court,
139 Cal. App.4th 1481 (2006).
Keene Corp.
No. 93 B 46090, 96 CV
3492 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)

June 13, 1996.
Kentile Floors, Inc.
No. 92 B 46466 BRL

(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)

December 10, 1998.
In re Keene Corp., 171 B.R. 180 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y. 1994); Keene Corp. v. Coleman (In
re Keene Corp.), 166 B.R. 31 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 1994); In re Keene Corp., 164 B.R.
844 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994); Keene Corp. v.
Acstar Ins. Co. (In re Keene Corp.), 162 B.R.
935 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994).
Kentiles successor, Metex Mfg. Corp., led a

Chapter 11 voluntary petition on November
9, 2012 (No. 12-14554, Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).
No. 10-12199-CSS
(Bankr. D. Del.)

October 28, 2010. An appeal was led on
October 29, 2010 (No. 10-924 (D. Del.)) but
remanded to the bankruptcy court, prior to
argument, on January 14, 2011. Order
conrming a revised plan entered by the
bankruptcy court January 18, 2011. Order
afrming the bankruptcy courts conrmation
order entered by the district court February 7,
2011; district court issued additional ndings in
support of conrmation on March 28, 2011.
In re Leslie Controls, Inc., 437 B.R. 493

(Bankr. D. Del. 2010).
No. 06-13250 (Bankr.

D. Md.)
First amended joint plan of liquidation led

by Debtor and ACC on July 8, 2008. On May
6, 2009, Debtor and the ACC led a joint
motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case. On
May 29, 2009, insurers Maryland Casualty
and Travelers led a plan of liquidation. On
November 5, 2014, the court dismissed the
bankruptcy case.
In re Lloyd E. Mitchell Co., 373 B.R. 416

(Bankr. D. Md. 2007).
Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.
No. 95-10453 (M.D.

Fla.)

April 15, 1997 and by the district court on
April 15, 1997.
In re Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., 399 B.R. 555

(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2009).
Metex Mfg. Corp.
No. 12-14554 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y.)

August 1, 2014.
In re Metex Mfg. Corp., 510 B.R. 735 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y. 2014).
M.H. Detrick
No. 98 B 01004 (Bankr.

N.D. Ill.)
Plan conrmed jointly by the bankruptcy

court and the district court on Aug. 21, 2002.
Mid-Valley, Inc. (Halliburton

subsidiaries)
No. 03-35592-JKF
(Bankr. W.D. Pa.)

July 16, 2004 and by the district court on
December 1, 2004.
In re Mid-Valley, Inc., 288 Fed. Appx. 784 (3d

Cir. 2008); In re Mid-Valley, Inc., 305 B.R.
425 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2004); In re ACandS,
Inc., 462 B.R. 88 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011) (also
Grace, Pittsburgh Corning, NARCO, and
33
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
Mid-Valley bankruptcy cases). See also Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v.
Halliburton Co., 597 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2010),
vacated and remanded, 131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011),
on remand, 647 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2011).
The Muralo Co.
No. 03-26723-MS
(Bankr. D.N.J.)

December 21, 2007.
Murphy Marine Services, Inc.
No. 01-00926 (Bankr.

D. Del.)
Plan led on January 23, 2002; case converted

to Chapter 7 on July 25, 2002.
National Gypsum Co./Ancor

Holdings Inc.
No. 90-37213 (Bankr.

N.D. Tex.)

March 9, 1993.
No. 12-12057 (Bankr.

D. Del.)
Chapter 7 petition led July 12, 2012.
North American Refractories

Corp. (NARCO)
No. 02-20198 (Bankr.

W.D. Pa.)
Plan approved by the bankruptcy court on

afrmed by the district court on July 25,
2008; conrmation order vacated by the
Third Circuit and remanded on May 4, 2011.
New plan conrmed by the bankruptcy court
and afrmed by the district court. Channeling
injunction became effective on April 30,
2013.
Nicolet, Inc.
No. 87-03574S (Bankr.

E.D. Pa.)

September 21, 1989.
Oakfabco, Inc. (fka Kewanee

Boiler Corp.)
No. 15-27062 (Bankr.

N.D. Ill.)
Petition led August 7, 2015.
Oglebay Norton Co.
No. 04-10558-JBR
(Bankr. D. Del.)

November 7, 2004. Company emerged from
bankruptcy on Jan. 31, 2005.
No. 12-20000 (Bankr.

D. Del.)
Plan conrmed by the bankruptcy court

July 18, 2014.
34
In re Muralo Co., 301 B.R. 690 (D.N.J.

2003); In re Muralo Co., 295 B.R. 512
(Bankr. D.N.J. 2003).
New Natl Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum

Co. Settlement Trust (In re Natl Gypsum), 219
F.3d 478 (5th Cir. 2000); Century Indem.
Co. v. Natl Gypsum Co. (In re Natl Gypsum
Co.), 208 F.3d 498 (5th Cir. 2000);
Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette Securities Corp. v.
National Gypsum Co. (In re National Gypsum
Co.), 123 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 1997); Ins. Co. of
North America v. NGC Settlement Trust (In re
National Gypsum Co.), 118 F.3d 1056 (5th
Cir. 1997); In re National Gypsum Co., 139
B.R. 397 (N.D. Tex. 1992); In re National
Gypsum Co., 134 B.R. 188 (N.D. Tex. 1991);
In re National Gypsum Co., 257 B.R. 184
(Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2000); In re National
Gypsum Co., 243 B.R. 676 (Bankr. D. Tex.
1999). See also United States Fire Ins. Co. v.
National Gypsum Co., 101 F.3d 813 (2d Cir.
1996); Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336
(Tex. 2005).
Honeywell Intl, Inc. v. North American

Refractories Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement
Trust (In re North American Refractories Co.),
543 B.R. 536 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2015);
Honeywell Intl, Inc. v. North American
Refractories Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement
Trust (In re North American Refractories Co.),
542 B.R. 350 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2015); In re
North American Refractories Co., 280 B.R. 356
(Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2002); In re ACandS, Inc.,
Grace, Pittsburgh Corning, NARCO, and MidValley bankruptcy cases). See also Continental
Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Intl, Inc., 406 N.J.
Super. 156, 967 A.2d 315 (N.J. App. Div.
2009); Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Honeywell
Intl Inc., 851 N.Y.S.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div.
2008).
See In re Kewanee Boiler Corp., 297 B.R. 720

(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2003); Kewanee Boiler
Corp. v. Smith (In re Kewanee Boiler Corp.),
198 B.R. 519 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996).
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
Owens Corning/ Fibreboard
No. 00-03837 (Bankr.

D. Del.)

September 26, 2006; conrmation order
afrmed by the district court on
September 28, 2006.
In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195 (3d Cir.

2005), revg In re Owens Corning, 316 B.R.
168 (D. Del. 2004); Owens Corning v. Credit
Suisse First Boston, 322 B.R. 719 (D. Del.
2005); In re Owens Corning, 305 B.R. 175 (D.
Del. 2004); In re Owens Corning, 291 B.R.
329 (Bankr. D. Del. 2003); In re Kensington
Intl Ltd., 368 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2004), revg
In re Owens Corning, 316 B.R. 168 (Bankr.
D. Del. 2004) (also applicable to the
Armstrong, Federal-Mogul, USG Corp., and
W.R. Grace bankruptcies); In re Kensington
Intl Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (also
applicable to the Armstrong, Federal-Mogul,
USG Corp., and W.R. Grace bankruptcies); In
re ACandS, Inc., 462 B.R. 88 (Bankr. D. Del.
Aluminum, U.S. Mineral Products, USG, W.R.
Grace, Pittsburgh Corning, NARCO, and MidValley bankruptcy cases). See also Wright v.
Owens Corning, 679 F.3d 101 (3d Cir. 2012);
Fibreboard Corp. v. Celotex Corp. (In re Celotex
Corp.), 472 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2006);
Rogers v. McCullogh, 173 Fed. Appx. 371 (6th
Cir. 2006); In re Motions for Access of Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC, 488 B.R. 281 (D.
Del. 2013) (also entered in the ACandS,
Kaiser Aluminum, USG, United States Mineral
Products, and W.R. Grace bankruptcy cases);
Wright v. Owens Corning, 450 B.R. 541
(W.D. Pa. 2011), affd in part and revd in
part, 679 F.3d 101 (3d Cir. 2012).
Philadelphia Asbestos Corp.

(Pacor, Inc.)
No. 86-03252G
(Bankr. E.D. Pa.)

November 30, 1989.
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
No. 00-22876 (Bankr.

W.D. Pa).
Second amended plan led on November 20,

2003; order entered by the bankruptcy court
on December 21, 2006 denying conrmation.
Third amended plan led January 29, 2009.
Conrmation hearing conducted for three
days during June, 2010; closing arguments
held October 29, 2010. Order entered by the
bankruptcy court on June 16, 2011 denying
conrmation.
Debtor led plan modications on September
23, 2011, April 20, 2012, and August 17,
2012. A conrmation hearing was held on
October 10, 2012. Conrmation order
entered by the bankruptcy court May 16,
2013 and afrmed by the district court on
September 30, 2014. Appeals to the Third
Circuit dismissed January 7, 2016. The
bankruptcy court approved technical amendments to the plan on March 24, 2016.
Plant Insulation Company
No. 09-31347 (Bankr.

N.D. Cal.)

April 4, 2012; conrmation order afrmed by
the district court on October 9, 2012. Stay
pending appeal denied by the district court on
November 1, 2012 and by both the Ninth
Circuit and Justice Kennedy, as circuit justice,
on November 8, 2012. Plan went effective
November 16, 2012.
In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 260 Fed. Appx.

463 (3d Cir. 2008); Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v.
Corning, Inc., 399 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2005);
In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 453 B.R. 570
(Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2011); In re Pittsburgh
Corning Corp., 417 B.R. 289 (Bankr. W.D.
Pa. 2006); In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 308
B.R. 716 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2004), affd, Dkt.
No. 17, No. 2:04-cv-01199-DSC (W.D. Pa.
Dec. 7, 2005); In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp.,
277 B.R. 74 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2002), affd,
260 Fed. Appx. 463 (3d Cir. 2008); In re
Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 255 B.R. 162
(Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2000); In re ACandS, Inc.,
Grace, Pittsburgh Corning, NARCO, and MidValley bankruptcy cases). See also Mt.
McKinley Ins. Co. v. Corning, Inc., 918
N.Y.S.2d 22 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011).
In re Plant Insulation Co., 734 F.3d 900 (9th
Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 1901
(2014); Firemans Fund Ins. Co. v. Plant
Insulation Co. (In re Plant Insulation Co.), 485
B.R. 203 (N.D. Cal. 2012), revd, 734 F.3d
900 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct.
1901 (2014); In re Plant Insulation Co., 469
B.R. 843 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2012), affd, 485
B.R. 203 (N.D. Cal. 2012), revd, 734 F.3d
35
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
Plan conrmation reversed by the Ninth

Circuit October 28, 2013.
900 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct.

1901 (2014); In re Plant Insulation Co., 414
B.R. 646 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2009).
On March 3, 2014, the bankruptcy court

issued an order conrming the revised postconrmation plan for the reasons stated in a
February 25, 2014, memorandum opinion.
On August 18, 2014, the district court issued
an order afrming the conrmation order.
Plibrico Co.
No. 02 B 09952 (Bankr.

N.D. Ill.)
Plan conrmed by the bankruptcy court and

the district court on January 30, 2006.
Porter-Hayden Co.
No. 02-54152 (Bankr.

D. Md.)

July 5, 2006 and by the district court on
July 7, 2006.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Porter Hayden

Co., 408 B.R. 66 (D. Md. 2009); National
Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Porter Hayden Co., 331
B.R. 652 (D. Md. 2005); Porter-Hayden Co. v.
First State Mgt. Group, Inc. (In re Porter-Hayden
Co.), 304 B.R. 725 (Bankr. D. Md. 2004).
No. 86-11773 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y.)

on October 4, 1990.
Asbestosis Claimants v. American Steamship

Owners Mut. Protection & Indem. Assn (In re
Prudential Lines), 533 F.3d 151 (2d Cir.
June 19, 2008); Dicola v. American S.S.
Owners Mut. Protection & Indem. Assn (In re
Prudential Lines, Inc.), 158 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.
1998); Dicola v. American S.S. Owners Mut.
Protection & Indem. Assn (In re Prudential
Lines, Inc.), 170 B.R. 222 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); In
re Prudential Lines, Inc.), 202 B.R. 13 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 1996); In re Prudential Lines, Inc.),
148 B.R. 730 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992).
Pulmosan Safety Equipment

Corp.
No. 10-16098 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y.)
Voluntary Chapter 7 petition led November 15,

2010. Case closed November 25, 2013.
Quigley Co.
No. 04-15739-SMB
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)
Fourth amended and restated plan modied

on August 6, 2009. The conrmation
hearing, which consumed 15 days of trial,
began September 23, 2009. On September 8,
2010, the bankruptcy court issued ndings of
fact and conclusions of law denying conrmation and ordered the parties to schedule a
conference to discuss the dismissal or other
disposition of this case. On September 21,
2010, the bankruptcy court issued its order
denying conrmation.
Quigley led a revised fth amended and
restated plan and a disclosure statement
related thereto on August 13, 2012. On
July 2, 2013, the bankruptcy court issued an
order conrming the plan and recommending
that the district court issue an injunction under
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. On July 31,
2013, the district court entered an order
adopting, approving, and afrming the plan
and the bankruptcy courts conrmation order.
No. 13-10687-smb
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)
Chapter 11 petition led March 8, 2013.
No. 89-00293 (Bankr.

D. Conn.)

August 31, 2000.
Reichhold Holdings US, Inc.;

Reichhold, Inc.; Canadyne Corp.;
Canadyne-Georgia Corp.
No. 14-12237 (Bankr.

D. Del.)
Chapter 11 petition led September 30, 2014.
No. 13-02916 (Bankr.

N.D. Ill.).
36
Second amended plan of liquidation led

November 19, 2015. Plan conrmed by the
bankruptcy court on January 13, 2016.
Case closed on February 4, 2015.
Pzer Inc. v. Law Ofces of Peter G. Angelos (In

re Quigley Co.), 676 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2012),
affg In re Quigley Co., 449 B.R. 196
(S.D.N.Y. 2011); In re Ad Hoc Comm. Of Tort
Victims (In re Quigley Co.), 327 B.R. 138
(S.D.N.Y. 2005); Quigley Co. v. Coleman (In
re Quigley Co.), 323 B.R. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 2005);
In re Quigley Co., 500 B.R. 347 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2013); In re Quigley Co., 437 B.R.
102 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re Quigley
Co., 391 B.R. 695 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008);
In re Quigley Co., 383 B.R. 19 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2008); In re Quigley Co., 377 B.R.
110 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007); Continental
Cas. Co. v. Pzer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.), 361
B.R. 723 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007); Quigley
Co. v. Coleman (In re Quigley Co.), 361 B.R.
670 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007); In re Quigley Co.,
346 B.R. 647 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006). See also
In re G-I Holdings, Inc., 755 F.3d 195 (3d Cir.
2014); I.U. North America Inc. v. A.I.U. Ins.
Co., 896 A.2d 880 (Del. Super. 2006).
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Nos. CV-99-J-1589-S,
BK-96-08295-TBB-11
(Bankr. N.D. Ala.)

on December 6, 1999.
Published Decisions
Rutland Fire Clay Co.
No. 99-11390 (Bankr.

D. Vt.)

by the district court on November 17, 2000.
Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a

The Brower Company)
No. 13-13531-MLB
(Bankr. W.D. Wash.)
Chapter 11 petition led April 18, 2013.

Debtors motion to dismiss the Chapter 11
case granted July 2, 2013.
No. 07-16075 (Bankr.

D. Colo.)
Chapter 7 petition led June 10, 2007.
Sepco Corporation
No. 16-50058 (Bankr.

N.D. Ohio)
Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co.
No. 02-02771-BGC-11
(Bankr. N.D. Ala.)

October 29, 2002 and by the district court on
November 8, 2002.
See Shook & Fletcher Asbestos Settlement

Trust v. Safety National Cas. Co., 909
A.2d 125 (Del. 2006).
Skinner Engine Co.
No. 01-23987-MBM
(Bankr. W.D. Pa.)
On May 27, 2009, the bankruptcy court

issued an order converting this case from
Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 on the ground, inter
alia, that debtors fth plan of liquidation is
unconrmable and that debtor and its coproponents have been, and are, unable to
effectuate a conrmable plan. On May 29,
2010, the district court issued an order
afrming the bankruptcy courts order
converting the case to Chapter 7 (Case No.
09-0886). The Third Circuit afrmed the
lower courts decisions on July 25, 2012. On
September 11, 2013, the bankruptcy court
issued an order granting the Chapter 7 trustees motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case.
In re American Capital Equipment, LLC, 688

F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2012); In re American
Capital Equipment, LLC, 296 Fed. Appx. 270
(3d Cir. 2008); In re American Capital
Equipment, LLC, 405 B.R. 415 (Bankr. W.D.
Pa. 2009), affd, 2010 WL 1337222 (W.D.
Pa. Mar. 29, 2010), affd, 688 F.3d 145 (3d
Cir. 2012); In re American Capital Equipment,
LLC, 325 B.R. 372 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2005);
In re American Capital Equipment, LLC, 324
B.R. 570 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2005).
Special Electric Co.
No. 04-25471-11MDM (E.D. Wis.)
Plan conrmed December 21, 2006.
Nos. 02-10335 to 0210338 (Bankr. E.D.

Ky.)

September 29, 2003; conrmation order
afrmed by the district court on March 12,
2004.
Century Indem. Co. v. Special Metals Corp. (In

re Special Metals Corp.), 360 B.R. 244 (E.D.
Ky. 2006); Century Indem. Co. v. Special
Metals Corp. (In re Special Metals Corp.), 317
B.R. 326 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2004).
Specialty Products Holding

Corp.; Bondex International, Inc.;
Republic Powdered Metals, Inc.;
NMBFiL, Inc. (fka Bondo Corp.)
No. 10-11780-PJW
(Bankr. D. Del.)
SPHC and Bondex led voluntary petitions

led May 31, 2010. On May 14, 2012, the
ACC and FCR led a joint plan of reorganization for Debtors. They led amended plans
on August 23, 2012, August 2, 2013, October
15, 2013, and December 17, 2013. On July
12, 2012, Debtors led a competing plan of
reorganization, but no disclosure statement.
Debtors led an amended rst joint plan of
reorganization on December 16, 2013.
See Bondex Intl v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.,

667 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 2011).
On August 15, 2014, NMBFiL led a

voluntary petition. On August 31, 2014,
Republic led a voluntary petition.
On September 26, 2014, the Debtors (SPHC,
Bondex, Republic, and NMBFiL) led a joint
plan of reorganization. They led a solicitation
version of the joint plan on October 23, 2014
and a revised plan on December 9, 2014. The
bankruptcy court and the district court each
conrmed the plan on December 10, 2014.
No. 86-03413-1-11
(Bankr. W.D. Mo.)

by the district court on October 26, 1992.
In re Standard Insulations, Inc., 138 B.R. 947

(Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1992).
37
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
No. 11-15110-MBK
(D.N.J.)
On February 10, 2012, the bankruptcy court

recommended that the district court enter an
order conrming the plan. On March 14,
2012, the district court accepted and
approved the bankruptcy courts ndings of
fact and conclusions of law and issued a
channeling injunction under 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code.
No. 01-11690-JKF
(Bankr. D. Del.)

July 21, 2003.
T H Agriculture & Nutrition,

LLC
No. 08-14692-reg
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)

May 28, 2009 and afrmed by the district
court on October 26, 2009.
No. 07-19271-BB
(Bankr. C.D. Cal.)
Jointly administered with the bankruptcy case

of Pacic Insulation Co., which led a
Chapter 11 petition on October 31, 2007.
February 1, 2010 and by the district court on
September 21, 2010. Stay pending appeal
denied by the district court on October 20,
2010, by the Ninth Circuit on October 21,
2010, and by Justice Kennedy, as circuit
justice, on October 22, 2010. Plan went
effective October 22, 2010.
On January 24, 2012, the Ninth Circuit
reversed conrmation and remanded for a
new conrmation hearing in bankruptcy
court.
On May 8, 2013, the bankruptcy court issued
an order conrming the Sixth Amended Plan.
On June 6, 2013, the district court issued an
order afrming the bankruptcy courts
conrmation order.
Published Decisions
Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co.

(In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869
(9th Cir. 2012); Continental Ins. Co. v. Thorpe
Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.),
671 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2012); Motor Vehicle
Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe
Insulation Co.), 671 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2012),
amended and superseded by Motor Vehicle Cas.
Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe
Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2012);
National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Thorpe
Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.),
393 Fed. Appx. 467 (9th Cir. 2010); Motor
Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re
Thorpe Insulation Co.), 392 Fed. Appx. 549
(9th Cir. 2010). See Employers Reins. Co. v.
Superior Ct. (Thorpe Insulation Co.), 161 Cal.
App.4th 906, 74 Cal. Rptr.3d 733 (2008).
No. 10-49354 (Bankr.

N.D. Cal.)
Voluntary Chapter 7 petition led August 16,

2010. Final decree entered August 21, 2015.
No. 5:11-bk-02032
(Bankr. M.D. Pa.)
Petition led March 23, 2011. Plan of reorganization conrmed by the bankruptcy court on
December 8, 2014. Plan conrmation afrmed
by the district court later that same day.
United States Lines
No. 86-12240 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y.) (jointly
administered with
McLean Industries, No.
86-12238)

May 16, 1989.
Asbestosis Claimants v. U.S. Lines Reorganization Trust (In re United States Lines, 318 F.3d
432 (2d Cir. 2003), affg U.S. Lines, Inc. v.
U.S. Lines Reorganization Trust, 262 B.R. 223
(S.D.N.Y. 2001); Maritime Asbestos Legal
Clinic v. United States Lines, Inc. (In re United
States Lines), 216 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2000); In
re United States Lines, 197 F.3d 631 (2d Cir.
1999), revg United States Lines, Inc. v. American S.S, Owners Mut. Protection & Indem.
Assn, 220 B.R. 5 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), revg
United States Lines, Inc. v. American S.S.
Owners Mut. Protection & Indem. Assn, 169
B.R. 804 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994); U.S. Lines,
Inc. v. U.S. Lines Reorganization Trust, 262
B.R. 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), affd, 318 F.3d
432 (2d Cir. 2003).
No. 01-02471 (Bankr.

D. Del.)

November 30, 2005; channeling injunction
issued by the district court December 14,
2005.
In re ACandS, Inc., 462 B.R. 88 (Bankr. D.

Del. 2011) (also entered in the Armstrong,
Aluminum, Owens Corning, USG, W.R.
Grace, Pittsburgh Corning, NARCO, and MidValley bankruptcy cases). See also In re Motions
38
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Published Decisions
for Access of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,
the ACandS, Armstrong, Combustion Engineering,
USG, and W.R. Grace bankruptcy cases).
UNR Industries, Inc.
Nos. 82 B 9841-9845,
82 B 9847, 82 B 9849
(Bankr. N.D. Ill.)

June 1, 1989.
In re UNR Indus., Inc., 20 F.3d 766 (7th Cir.

1994); In re UNR Indus., Inc., 986 F.2d 207
(7th Cir. 1993); UNR Indus., Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 942 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir.
1991); In re UNR Indus., Inc., 736 F.2d 1136
(7th Cir. 1984); In re UNR Indus., Inc., 725
F.2d 1111 (7th Cir., 1984); In re UNR Indus.,
Inc., 224 B.R. 664 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1998); In
re UNR Indus., Inc., 212 B.R. 295 (Bankr.
N.D. Ill. 1997); UNR Indus., Inc. v. Bloomington Factory Workers, 173 B.R. 149 (N.D.
Ill. 1994); In re UNR Indus., Inc., 143 B.R.
506 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1992), revd, 173 B.R.
149 (N.D. Ill. 1994); UNARCO Bloomington
Factory Workers v. UNR Indus., Inc., 124 B.R.
268 (N.D. Ill. 1990); UNR Indus., Inc. v.
American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 92 B.R. 319
(N.D. Ill. 1988); In re UNR Indus., Inc., 74
B.R. 146 (N.D. Ill. 1987); In re UNR Indus.,
Inc., 72 B.R. 796 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987); In re
UNR Indus., Inc., 72 B.R. 789 (Bankr. N.D.
Ill. 1987); In re UNR Indus., Inc., 71 B.R. 467
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987); In re UNR Indus.,
UNR Indus., Inc., 46 B.R. 25 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
1984); In re UNR Indus., Inc., 42 B.R. 99
UNR Indus., Inc., 29 B.R. 741 (N.D. Ill.
1983); In re UNR Indus., Inc., 23 B.R. 144
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1982). See also Rohn Indus.,
Inc. v. Platinum Equity LLC, 887 A.2d 983
(Del. Super. 2005).
USG Corp.
No. 01-2094 (Bankr. D.

Del.)
Plan conrmed by both the bankruptcy court

and the district court on June 15, 2006.
In re Kensington Intl Ltd., 368 F.3d 289 (3d

Cir. 2004) (also applicable to the Armstrong,
Federal-Mogul, Owens Corning, and W.R.
Grace bankruptcies); In re Kensington Intl
Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (also
applicable to the Armstrong, Federal-Mogul,
Owens Corning, and W.R. Grace bankruptcies); In re ACandS, Inc., 462 B.R. 88 (Bankr.
D. Del. 2011) (also entered in the Armstrong,
Products, W.R. Grace, Pittsburgh Corning,
NARCO, and Mid-Valley bankruptcy cases);
In re USG Corp., 290 B.R. 223 (Bankr. D.
Del. 2003). See also In re G-I Holdings, Inc.,
755 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2014); In re Motions for
Access of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,
the ACandS, Armstrong, Combustion Engineering, Flintkote, Kaiser Aluminum, Owens
Corning, United States Mineral Products, and
W.R. Grace bankruptcy cases).
39
MEALEYS
Company
Case No. & Court
Plan Status
Utex Industries
No. 04-34427 (Bankr.

S.D. Tex.)

the district court on June 16, 2004.
Wallace & Gale
No. 85-40092 (Bankr.

D. Md.)

July 27, 1998 and afrmed by the district
court on May 30, 2002.
Jones v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (In re Wallace &

Gale Co.), 385 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 2004), affg,
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Wallace & Gale Co.
(In re Wallace & Gale Co.), 284 B.R. 557 (D.
Md. 2002), reconsidering Aetna Cas. & Sur.
Co. v. Wallace & Gale Co. (In re Wallace &
Gale Co.), 275 B.R. 223 (D. Md. 2002); Legal
Representative for Future Claimants v. Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re Wallace & Gale Co.), 72
F.3d 21 (4th Cir. 1995); Aetna Cas. & Sur.
Co. v. Wallace & Gale Co. (In re Wallace &
Gale Co.), 284 B.R. 560 (D. Md. 2002). See
also Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville, 988
A.2d 1059 (Md. App. 2010).
No. 83-11732 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y.)

June 19, 1986.
In re Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Aguiar, 141 B.R.

552 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992).
Western Macarthur/ Western

Asbestos
No. 02-46284-86
(Bankr. N.D. Cal.)

January 27, 2004 and afrmed by the district
court on April 16, 2004.
Renfrew v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (In re

Western Asbestos Co.), 406 Fed. Appx. 227
(9th Cir. 2010); Renfrew v. Hartford Acc. &
Indem. Co. (In re Western Asbestos Co.), 416
B.R. 670 (N.D. Cal. 2009), affd, 406 Fed.
Appx. 227 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Western
Asbestos Co., 313 B.R. 859 (N.D. Cal. 2004);
In re Western Asbestos Co., 318 B.R. 527
(Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2004); In re Western
Asbestos Co., 313 B.R. 832 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.
2003); In re Western Asbestos Co., 313 B.R.
456 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2004). See also
Snyder v. Calif. Ins. Guar. Assn, 229 Cal.
App.4th 1196, 177 Cal. Rptr.3d 853 (2014);
United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. American
Re-Insurance Co., 939 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y.
App. Div. 2012);Volkswagen of America,
Inc. v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App.4th 1481
(2006).
W.R. Grace Co.
Nos. 01-1139, 01-1140

(Bankr. D. Del.)
On January 31, 2011, the bankruptcy court

issued ndings of fact, conclusions of law, a
memorandum opinion, and a recommendation that the district court conrm the plan
and issue the various injunctions called for by
the plan. On February 15, 2011, the bankruptcy court issued an order clarifying its
January 31 order, ndings, and conclusions.
On March 4, 2011, the bankruptcy court
issued an order that granted in part and denied
in part a motion for reconsideration of the
January 31, 2011 order and opinion.
In re W.R. Grace & Co., 729 F.3d 332 (3d Cir.

2013); In re W.R. Grace & Co., 729 F.3d 311
(3d Cir. 2013); In re W.R. Grace & Co., 532
Fed. Appx. 264 (3d Cir. 2013); W.R. Grace &
Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.),
591 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 2009); In re W.R.
Grace & Co., 316 Fed. Appx. 134 (3d Cir.
2009); In re Kensington Intl Ltd., 368 F.3d
289 (3d Cir. 2004) (also applicable to the
Armstrong, Federal-Mogul, Owens Corning,
and USG Corp. bankruptcies); Gerard v. W.R.
Grace & Co. (In re W.R. Grace & Co.), 115
Fed. Appx. 565 (3d Cir. 2004); In re
Kensington Intl Ltd., 353 F.3d 211 (3d Cir.
2003) (also applicable to the Armstrong,
Federal-Mogul, Owens Corning, and USG
bankruptcies); In re W.R. Grace & Co., 476
B.R. 114 (D. Del. 2012); In re W.R. Grace &
Co., 475 B.R. 34 (D. Del. 2012), affd, 532
Fed. Appx. 264 (3d Cir. 2013), In re W.R.
Grace & Co., 729 F.3d 332 (3d Cir. 2013),
and In re W.R. Grace & Co., 729 F.3d 311 (3d
Cir. 2013); In re W.R. Grace & Co., 468 B.R.
81 (D. Del. 2012), amended and superseded,
475 B.R. 34 (D. Del. 2012); State of California Dept of Genl Svcs. v. W.R. Grace & Co.
(In re W.R. Grace & Co.), 418 B.R. 511 (D.
Del. 2009); State of New Jersey v. W.R.
On January 30, 2012, the district court issued

an order conrming the plan. Following
motions for reconsideration, on June 11, 2012
the district court issued a revised order
conrming the plan. Appeals were led in the
Third Circuit (Nos. 12-1402, et al., consolidated). The district court on June 27, 2012
denied a motion to stay the conrmation order
pending appeal; the movant renewed its motion
in the Third Circuit, where it is pending.
The Third Circuit issued three opinions
afrming aspects of the district courts order
conrming the plan (one non-precedential
opinion on July 24, 2013, and two precedential
40
Published Decisions
MEALEYS
Company
Yarway Corporation
Case No. & Court
No. 13-11025 (Bankr.

D. Del.)
Plan Status
Published Decisions
opinions on September 4, 2013). The last set of

objections settled, and the plan went into effect
on February 3, 2014.
Grace & Co. (In re W.R. Grace & Co.), 412

Co., 398 B.R. 368 (D. Del. 2008); In re
Products, USG, W.R. Grace, Pittsburgh
Corning, NARCO, and Mid-Valley bankruptcy cases); In re W.R. Grace & Co., 446
B.R. 96 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011), affd, 475
Co., 403 B.R. 317 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009); In
re W.R. Grace & Co., 397 B.R. 701 (Bankr.
D. Del. 2008), revd, State of California Dept
of Genl Svcs. v. W.R. Grace & Co. (In re W.R.
Grace & Co.), 418 B.R. 511 (D. Del. 2009);
In re W.R. Grace & Co., 389 B.R. 373 (Bankr.
D. Del. 2008); W.R. Grace & Co. v.
Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.), 386 B.R.
17 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008); W.R. Grace &
Co. v. Campbell (In re W.R. Grace & Co.), 384
B.R. 678 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008), affd sub
nom. State of New Jersey v. W.R. Grace & Co.
(In re W.R. Grace & Co.), 412 B.R. 657 (D.
Del. 2009); W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian
(In re W.R. Grace & Co.), 384 B.R. 670
(Bankr. D. Del. 2008); In re W.R. Grace &
Co., 366 B.R. 302 (Bankr. D. Del. 2007),
affd, 2007 WL 4333817 (D. Del. 2007),
affd, 316 Fed. Appx. 134 (3d Cir. 2009);
W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R.
Grace & Co.), 366 B.R. 295 (Bankr. D. Del.
2007), affd, 2008 WL 3522453 (D. Del.
Aug. 12, 2008), affd, 591 F.3d 164 (3d Cir.
2009); In re W.R. Grace & Co., 355 B.R. 462
(Bankr. D. Del. 2006); In re W.R. Grace &
Co., 346 B.R. 672 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006);
W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R.
Grace & Co.), 315 B.R. 353 (Bankr. D. Del.
2004); Ofcial Comm. Of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants v. Sealed Air Corp. (In re
W.R. Grace & Co.), 281 B.R. 852 (Bankr. D.
Del. 2002). See also In re Motions for Access of
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 488 B.R.
281 (D. Del. 2013) (also entered in the
ACandS, Armstrong, Combustion Engineering,
United States Mineral Products, and USG
bankruptcy cases); W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v.
Zotos Intl, Inc., 559 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009);
U.S. v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir.
2008); U.S. v. W.R. Grace, 455 F. Supp.2d
1113 (D. Mont. 2006), revd, 504 F.3d 745,
755 (9th Cir. 2007); U.S. v. W.R. Grace, 280
F. Supp.2d 1149 (D. Mont. 2003), affd, 429
F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 127
S.Ct. 379 (2006); TIG Ins. Co. v. Smolker,
264 B.R. 661 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001).
Chapter 11 petition led April 22, 2013. Plan

conrmed by the bankruptcy court on
April 8, 2015. Plan conrmation afrmed by
the district court on July 14, 2015.
41
MEALEYS
8.
Id. at } 12.
9.
Id. at } 11.
10.
See Motion of Debtor for Order Extending or

Applying the Automatic Stay to Certain Settling
Insurers, Dkt. No. 39, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 1512437 (Bankr. E.D. La. Oct. 7, 2015).
11.
See Order, Dkt. No. 76, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 1512437 (Bankr. E.D. La. Oct. 28, 2015).
12.
See Application to Retain and Employ Caplin &

Drysdale, Chartered as Counsel to the Unsecured
Creditors Committee Nunc Pro Tunc to November 23,
2015. Dkt. No. 134, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437
(Bankr. E.D. La. May 2, 2016); Application of the
Ofcial Committee of Unsecured Creditors for an
Order Authorizing the Retention and Employment
of Gilbert LLP, as Special Insurance Counsel, Nunc
Pro Tunc as of November 23, 2015, Dkt. No. 147, In
re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437 (Bankr. E.D. La. May
10, 2016).
13.
See Order, Dkt. No. 199, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 1512437 (Bankr. E.D. La. June 2, 2016); Order, Dkt.
No. 200, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437 (Bankr.
E.D. La. June 2, 2016); Order, Dkt. No. 210, In re
Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437 (Bankr. E.D. La. June 7,
2016).
14.
See Ex Parte Motion to Substitute Counsel, Dkt.

No. 225, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437 (Bankr.
E.D. La. July 5, 2016); Application to Retain and
Employ Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered as Counsel to
the Unsecured Creditors Committee Nunc Pro
Tunc to November 23, 2015, Dkt. No. 227, In re
Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437 (Bankr. E.D. La. July 5,
2016).
15.
See e.g., Pacic Employers Insurance Companys

Objection to the Unsecured Creditors Committees
Ex Parte Motion to Substitute Counsel and Renewed
Objection to Application to Employ Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered as Counsel to the Unsecured Creditors Committee, Nunc Pro Tunc to November 23,
2015, Dkt. No. 235, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437
(Bankr. E.D. La. July 20, 2016); U.S. Trustees
Objection to: (1) the Unsecured Creditors Committees Ex Parte Motion to Substitute Counsel and
Endnotes
1.
See Plevin, et al., Where Are They Now? A History Of

The Companies That Have Sought Bankruptcy Protection Due To Asbestos Claims, Mealeys Asbestos
Bankruptcy Report, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Aug. 2001); Plevin, et al., Where Are They Now?, Part Two: A Continuing History Of The Companies That Have Sought
Bankruptcy Protection Due To Asbestos Claims, Mealeys Litigation Report: Asbestos, Vol. 17, No. 20
(Nov. 2002); Plevin, et al., Where Are They Now?,
Part Three: A Continuing History Of The Companies
That Have Sought Bankruptcy Protection Due To
Asbestos Claims, Mealeys Asbestos Bankruptcy
Report, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Nov. 2005); Plevin, et al.,
Where Are They Now?, Part Four: A Continuing History Of The Companies That Have Sought Bankruptcy
Protection Due To Asbestos Claims, Mealeys Asbestos
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, Mealeys Asbestos Bankruptcy Report,
Vol. 8, No. 8 (March 2009); Plevin, et al., Where Are
They Now, Part Six: An Update on Developments In
Asbestos-Related Bankruptcy Cases, Mealeys Asbestos
Bankruptcy Report, Vol. 11, No. 7 (Feb. 2012);
Plevin, et al., Where Are They Now, Part Seven: An
Update on Developments In Asbestos-Related Bankruptcy Cases, Mealeys Asbestos Bankruptcy Report,
Vol. 13, No. 12 (July 2014).
2.
Corrections are welcome. Please send any corrections

or comments to mplevin@crowell.com or tyoon@
crowell.com.
3.
See Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition, Dkt. No. 1, In

re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437 (Bankr. E.D. La.
Sept. 22, 2015).
4.
See Declaration of Raymond Tellini, President of

Eagle, Inc., in Support of Chapter 11 Petition and
Initial Pleadings at } 6, Dkt. No. 2, In re Eagle, Inc.,
No. 15-12437 (Bankr. E.D. La. Sept. 22, 2015).
5.
Id.
6.
Id. at } 7.
7.
Id. at } 11.
42
MEALEYS
(2) Objection to Application to Employ Caplin &

Drysdale, Chartered as Counsel to the Unsecured
Creditors Committee, Nunc Pro Tunc, Dkt. No.
238, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437 (Bankr. E.D.
La. July 20, 2016).
16.
See Statement of the Debtor in Support of (I) Ex

Parte Motion to Substitute Counsel, and (II) Application to Retain and Employ Caplin & Drysdale,
Chartered as Counsel to the Unsecured Creditors
Committee Nunc Pro Tunc to November 23, 2015,
Dkt. No. 252, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437
(Bankr. E.D. La. July 25, 2016).
17.
See Order Granting the Unsecured Creditors Committees Motion to Substitute and Approving and
Authorizing the Employment and Retention of
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered as Counsel to the
Unsecured Creditors Committee, Dkt. No. 262,
In re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437 (Bankr. E.D. La.
Aug. 1, 2016).
18.
See Motion of United States Fidelity and Guaranty

Company for Entry of an Order Appointing a Chapter 11 Trustee, Dkt. No. 268, In re Eagle, Inc., No.
15-12437 (Bankr. E.D. La. Aug. 31, 2016).
19.
Id. at 1.
20.
See Pacic Employers Insurance Companys Motion

to Dismiss Bankruptcy Petition Pursuant to 11
U.S.C. 1112(b)(1), 1129(a)(9), and 524(g),
Dkt. No. 278, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437
(Bankr. E.D. La. Sept. 12, 2016).
21.
See Order Granting Ex Parte Motion to Continue

and Reset Hearing on Motion for Order Appointing
Chapter 11 Trustee, Dkt. No. 274, In re Eagle, Inc.,
No. 15-12437 (Bankr. E.D. La. Sept. 7, 2016);
Notice of Hearing on Pacic Employers Insurance
Companys Motion to Dismiss Bankruptcy Petition
Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 1112(b)(1), 1129(a)(9),
and 524(g), Dkt. No. 282, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 1512437 (Bankr. E.D. La. Sept. 12, 2016).
22.
See Plan of Reorganization of Eagle, Inc. under

Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No.
286, In re Eagle, Inc., No. 15-12437 (Bankr. E.D.
La. Sept. 13, 2016).
23.
See Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition, Dkt. No. 1, In re

Energy Future Holdings Corp., Case No. 14-10979
(Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 29, 2014).
24.
See Declaration of Paul Keglevic, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Ofcer, and Co-Chief
Restructuring Ofcer of Energy Future Holdings
Corp., et al., in Support of First Day Motions at
} 6, Dkt. No. 90, In re Energy Future Holdings
Corp., Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 29,
2014).
25.
Id. at }} 10, 11.
26.
See Motion of Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al.,

for Entry of an Order (A) Setting Bar Dates for
Filing Non-Customer Proofs of Claim and Requests
for Payment under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, (B) Approving the Form and Manner
for Filing Non-Customer Proofs of Claim and
Requests for Payment under Section 503(b)(9) of
the Bankruptcy Code, and (C) Approving Notice
Thereof, Dkt. No. 1682, In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del.
July 23, 2014).
27.
See Objection of Certain Asbestos Claimants to the

Motion of Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al., for
Entry of an Order (A) Setting Bar Dates for Filing
Non-Customer Proofs of Claim and Requests for
Payment under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy
Code, (B) Approving the Form and Manner for Filing Non-Customer Proofs of Claim and Requests for
Code, and (C) Approving Notice Thereof, Dkt. No.
1791, In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., Case
No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 8, 2014).
28.
See Order (A) Setting Bar Dates for Filing NonCustomer Proofs of Claim and Requests for Payment under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy
Code, (B) Approving the Form and Manner for Filing Non-Customer Proofs of Claim and Requests for
Code, and (C) Approving Notice Thereof, Dkt. No.
1866, In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., Case
No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 18, 2014).
29.
See Notice of Appointment of Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Dkt. No. 2570, In re Energy Future
43
MEALEYS
Holdings Corp., Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D.

Del. Oct. 27, 2014).
30.
See In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 522 B.R.

520 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015).
31.
Id. at 526.
32.
Id. at 528.
33.
Id. at 539.
34.
See Order (A) Setting Bar Date for Filing Asbestos

Proofs of Claim, (B) Approving the Form of and Manner for Filing Asbestos Proofs of Claim, and (C)
Approving Notice Thereof, Dkt. No. 4997, In re
(Bankr. D. Del. July 15, 2015), as amended by Dkt.
No. 5171, In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., Case
No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del. July 30, 2015).
35.
See Order, Dkt. No. 5265, In re Energy Future

Del. Aug. 11, 2015).
36.
See Joint Plan of Reorganization of Energy Future

Holdings Corp., et al., Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 4142, In re Energy
Future Holdings Corp., Case No. 14-10979
(Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 14, 2015).
37.
See Order Conrming the Sixth Amended Joint

Plan of Reorganization of Energy Future Holdings
Corp., Dkt. No. 7244, In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del.
Dec. 7, 2015).
38.
See Trial Brief and Omnibus Objection of Fenicle

and Fahy to (I) Motion of Energy Future Holdings
Corp., et al., to Approve a Settlement of Litigation
Claims and Authorize the Debtors to Enter into and
Perform under the Settlement Agreement and (II)
Conrmation of the Fifth Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization of Energy Future Holdings Corp.,
et al., Dkt. No. 6610, In re Energy Future Holdings
Corp., Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 23,
2015).
39.
44
See Disclosure Statement for the Amended Joint

Corp., et al., Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code at 7-8, Dkt. No. 8423, In re Energy
Future Holdings Corp., Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr.
D. Del. May 11, 2016).
40.
See Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Energy

Future Holdings Corp., et al., Pursuant to Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 8421, In re
(Bankr. D. Del. May 10, 2016).
41.
See id. at Art. IV.B.2.
42.
Id. at Art. IX.A and B.
43.
Id. at Art. III.B.3.
44.
See Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of

Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al., Pursuant to
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No.
9199-1, In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., Case
No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 5, 2016).
45.
Id. at Art. IV.B.9.
46.
See Order Conrming the Third Amended Joint

Corp., et al., Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code as it Applies to the TCEH Debtors and
EFH Shared Services Debtors, Dkt. No. 9421, In re
(Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 29, 2016); Third Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization of Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al., Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 9375, In re Energy
Future Holdings Corp., Case No. 14-10979
(Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 23, 2016).
47.
See Notice of Appeal, Dkt. No. 9521, In re Energy

Future Holdings Corp., Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr.
D. Del. Sept. 12, 2016).
48.
Order Scheduling Certain Hearing Dates and Deadlines and Establishing Certain Protocols in Connection with Conrmation of the Debtors Joint Plan of
Reorganization as it Relates to the EFH/EFIH Debtors, Dkt. No. 9381, In re Energy Future Holdings
Corp., Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 24,
2016).
MEALEYS
49.

Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc., Case No. 15-23704 (Bankr.
W.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 2015).
50.
See Declaration of Joseph E. Linehan in Support of

Chapter 11 Petition and First Day Motions at } 18,
Dkt. No. 8, In re Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc., Case No.
15-23704 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 2015).
51.
Id.
52.
See id. at }} 19-20.
53.
See Notice of Appointment of Ofcial Committee of

Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, Dkt. No. 73, In
re Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc., Case No. 15-23704
(Bankr. W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2015).
54.
See Default Order Appointing Gary Philip Nelson

as the Legal Representative of Holders of Future
Asbestos Demands Nunc Pro Tunc as of November
30, 2015, Dkt. No. 199, In re Geo. V. Hamilton,
Inc., Case No. 15-23704 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Dec. 23,
2015).
55.
See Order Extending the Debtors Exclusive Periods

to File a Chapter 11 Plan and Solicit Acceptances
Thereof, Dkt. No. 566, In re Geo. V. Hamilton,
Inc., Case No. 15-23704 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. July
21, 2016).
56.

Henry Vogt Machine Co., Case No. 12-34186
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2012).
57.
See Declaration of David F. Mack in Support of First

Day Motions at } II.B.1, Dkt. No. 3, In re Henry
Vogt Machine Co., Case No. 12-34186 (Bankr.
W.D. Ky. Sept. 17, 2012).
58.
See id. at }} II.B.12-13.
59.
See id. at } II.B.16.
60.
61.
No. 412, In re Henry Vogt Machine Co., Case No.

12-34186 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 11, 2014).
62.
See Disclosure Statement for the Plan of Liquidation

of Henry Vogt Machine Co., Dkt. No. 416, In re
Henry Vogt Machine Co., Case No. 12-34186
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 14, 2014); Order, Dkt.
No. 418, In re Henry Vogt Machine Co., Case
No. 12-34186 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 19, 2014).
63.
See Amended Plan of Liquidation of Henry Vogt

Machine Co. at Arts. III.B.6, IV.E, and IV.L,
Dkt. No. 424, In re Henry Vogt Machine Co.,
Case No. 12-34186 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 22,
2014).
64.
See id. at Art. III.B.6(b).
65.
See Preliminary Objection of Republic Insurance

Company, National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, PA, Granite State Insurance Company, and American International Specialty Lines
Insurance Company to the Amended Plan of Liquidation of Henry Vogt Machine Co., Dkt. No. 438,
In re Henry Vogt Machine Co., Case No. 12-34186
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 24, 2014).
66.
See Order Conrming Amended Plan of Liquidation

of Henry Vogt Machine Co. Under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 447, In re Henry
W.D. Ky. Dec. 31, 2014).
67.
See Republic Insurance Companys, National Union

Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PAs, Granite State Insurance Companys, and American International Specialty Lines Insurance Companys Joint
Notice of Appeal of Order Conrming Amended
Plan of Liquidation, Dkt. No. 455, In re Henry
W.D. Ky. Jan. 14, 2015).
68.
See Order, Dkt. No. 486, In re Henry Vogt Machine

Co., Case No. 12-34186 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Feb. 24,
2015).
69.
See Final Decree, Dkt. No. 494, In re Henry Vogt

Machine Co., Case No. 12-34186 (Bankr. W.D.
Ky. March 3, 2015).
See Plan of Liquidation of Henry Vogt Machine Co.,

Dkt. No. 397, In re Henry Vogt Machine Co., Case
No. 12-34186 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 8, 2014).
See Objection to Disclosure Statement for the Plan
of Liquidation of Henry Vogt Machine Co., Dkt.
45
MEALEYS
70.
See Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal,

Dkt. No. 7, Republic Insurance Company v. Henry
Vogt Machine Co. (In re Henry Vogt Machine Co.),
No. 3:15-cv-00069-JHM (W.D. Ky. March 6,
2015).
71.
See Voluntary Petition, Dkt. No. 1, In re Oakfabco,

Inc., No. 15-27062 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2015).
72.
See Declaration of Frederick W. Stein in Support of

Chapter 11 Petition and First Day Pleadings of Oakfabco, Inc. at } 10, Dkt. No. 19, In re Oakfabco,
Inc., No. 15-27062 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2015).
73.
Id. at } 11.
74.
Id. at } 12. See Kewanee Boiler Corp. v. Smith (In re

Kewanee Boiler Corp.), 198 B.R. 519 (Bankr. N.D.
Ill. 1996).
75.
Id. at } 18.
76.
Id. at } 16.
77.
Id. at } 15.
78.
Companies Pursuant to the Sale of Certain Insurance Policies, Dkt. No. 66, In re Oakfabco, Inc.,
No. 15-27062 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2015);
Debtors Motion for an Order: (I) Approving the
Assumption of a Settlement Agreement and Release
between Oakfabco, Inc. and New England Reinsurance Company; (II) Approving the Sale of Certain
Insurance Policies to New England Reinsurance
Company; and (III) Issuing an Injunction in Favor
of New England Reinsurance Company and Certain
Others Pursuant to the Sale of Certain Insurance
Policies, Dkt. No. 67, In re Oakfabco, Inc., No.
15-27062 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2015).
82.
See Order Approving Settlement With Afliated FM

Insurance Company, Including the Sale of Insurance
Policies, Free and Clear of Liens, Claims, Interests,
and Other Encumbrances, Dkt. No. 257, In re
Oakfabco, Inc., No. 15-27062 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
June 27, 2016).
83.
See Asbestos Committees Objection to Debtors

Proposed Settlements with CNA and Hartford,
Dkt. No. 268, In re Oakfabco, Inc., No. 1527062 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2016).
Id. at } 19.
84.
Id. at 4-5.
79.
Id. at } 20.
85.
Id. at 6.
80.
See Notice of Appointment of the Asbestos Claimants Committee, Dkt. No. 51, In re Oakfabco,
Inc., No. 15-27062 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 27,
2015).
86.
81.
See Debtors Motion for an Order: (I) Approving the

Assumption of a Settlement Agreement and Release
between Oakfabco, Inc. and Afliated FM Insurance
Company; (II) Approving the Sale of Certain Insurance Policies to Afliated FM Insurance Company;
and (III) Issuing an Injunction in Favor of Afliated
FM Insurance Company Pursuant to the Sale of
Certain Insurance Policies, Dkt. No. 65, In re
Oakfabco, Inc., No. 15-27062 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
Sept. 11, 2015); Debtors Motion for an Order: (I)
Approving the Assumption of a Settlement Agreement and Release between Oakfabco, Inc. and the
CNA Companies; (II) Approving the Sale of Certain
Insurance Policies to the CNA Companies; and
(III) Issuing an Injunction in Favor of the CNA
See Order Further Extending the Debtors (I) Exclusive Periods to File a Chapter 11 Plan and Solicit
Acceptances Thereof and (II) Deadline to File a
Chapter 11 Plan and Disclosure Statement, Dkt.
No. 261, In re Oakfabco, Inc., No. 15-27062
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 27, 2016).
87.
See Declaration of Roger L. Willis, Chief Financial

Ofcer and Treasurer of Reichhold, Inc. in Support
of Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions at }}
15-17, Dkt. No. 13, In re Reichhold Holdings US,
Inc., Case No. 14-12237 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 30,
2014).
88.
Id. at }} 20-40.
89.
Id. at } 55.
90.
See Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections

105(a), 363, 365, and Bankruptcy Rules 2002,
46
MEALEYS
6004, 6006 (I) Approving the Sale of the Debtors

Assets Free and Clear of all Liens, Claims, Encumbrances and Interests; (II) Authorizing the Assumption and Assignment of Certain Executory Contracts
and Unexpired Leases; and (III) Granting Certain
Related Relief, Dkt. No. 479, In re Reichhold Holdings US, Inc., Case No. 14-12237 (Bankr. D. Del.
Jan. 12, 2015).
Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code

Proposed by the Debtors; (B) the Effective Date of
the Plan; (C) Substantial Consummation of the
Plan; and (D) Bar Dates for Certain Administrative,
Professional Fee and Rejection Claims, Dkt. No.
1480, In re Reichhold Holdings US, Inc., Case
No. 14-12237 (Bankr. D. Del. March 3, 2016).
99.
91.
92.
93.
See Order Authorizing the Debtors to Change the

Name of Reichhold, Inc. and Changing the Caption
for Filings in the Debtors Cases, Dkt. No. 717, In re
Reichhold Holdings US, Inc., Case No. 14-12237
(Bankr. D. Del. May 5, 2015).
See Plan of Liquidation Pursuant to Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code Proposed by the Debtors, Dkt.
No. 1043, In re Reichhold Holdings US, Inc., Case
No. 14-12237 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 15, 2015).
See Disclosure Statement with Respect to Plan of
Liquidation Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Proposed by the Debtors at 30-31,
Dkt. No. 1042, In re Reichhold Holdings
US, Inc., Case No. 14-12237 (Bankr. D. Del.
Sept. 15, 2015).
94.
Id. at 31.
95.
See Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order

Conrming Second Amended Plan of Liquidation
Proposed by the Debtors, Dkt. No. 1385, In re
(Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 13, 2016).
96.
See Second Amended Plan of Liquidation Pursuant

to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Proposed by
the Debtors at Art. III.G.2, Dkt. No. 1247, In re
(Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 19, 2015).
97.
Id. at Art. VIII.B.6.
98.
See Notice of Filing of Final Products Insurance

Cooperation Agreement, Dkt. No. 1388, In re
(Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 14, 2016); Notice of (A) Entry
of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Conrming Second Amended Plan of Liquidation
See Voluntary Petition, Dkt. No. 1, In re Sepco Corp.,

No. 16-50058 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Jan. 1, 2016).
100. See Declaration of Richard J. Szekelylin in Support

of Chapter 11 Petition and First-Day Papers at } 13,
Dkt. No. 16, In re Sepco Corp., No. 16-50058
(Bankr. N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2016).
101. Id. at } 14.
102. Id. at } 11.
103. Id. at } 3.
104. Id.
105. See Notice of Appointment of Committee of Asbestos Claimants, Dkt. No. 37, In re Sepco Corp., No.
16-50058 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2016).
106. See Order Granting Debtors Motion to Further
Extend Exclusive Periods within which to File a
Chapter 11 Plan and to Solicit Acceptance Thereof,
Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 1121(d), Dkt. No. 128, In
re Sepco Corp., No. 16-50058 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio
July 25, 2016).
107. See Notice of Appointment of the Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, Dkt. No. 364,
In re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 14-11873
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. July 30, 2014).
108. See Order (I) Establishing Bar Dates for Filing Proofs
of Claim, (II) Approving Form and Manner of
Notice Thereof, and (III) Granting Related Relief,
Dkt. No. 626, In re The Budd Company, Inc., No.
14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2014).
109. Id. at Ex. 2.
110. See Sixth Omnibus Objection of the Debtor to
Claims led by Individuals Alleging Property,
47
MEALEYS
Personal or Bodily Injury arising from Exposure to

Asbestos, Dkt. No. 1003, In re The Budd Company,
Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 13,
2015).
117. Motion of the Ofcial Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants to Modify the Automatic
Stay, Dkt. No. 1204, In re The Budd Company,
Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2015).
111. See Debtors Motion for an Order, Pursuant to

Bankruptcy Code Section 105(a) and Bankruptcy
Rule 3007, Approving Claim Objection Procedures,
14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2015).
118. See Notication of Docket Entry, Dkt. No. 20, The

Ofcial Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants v. The Budd Co. (In re The Budd Co.), No.
15-cv-9492 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2016).
112. See Insurers Motion for an Order, Pursuant to

Bankruptcy Code Section 105(a) and Bankruptcy
Rule 3007, Approving Claim Objection Procedures
and Joinder in Debtors Claim Objection Procedures
Motion, Dkt. No. 1076, In re The Budd Company,
Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 11,
2015).
113. See Disclosure Statement for Chapter 11 Plan dated
September 30, 2015 at 19, Dkt. No. 1134, In re The
Budd Company, Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D.
Ill. Sept. 30, 2015).
114. See Chapter 11 Plan for The Budd Company, Inc.
dated September 30, 2015 at Art. II.B.5, Dkt. No.
1132, In re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 1411873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2015).
115. Id.
116. See Motion of the Ofcial Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants to Withdraw the Reference with Respect to the Sixth Omnibus Objection
of the Debtor to Claims Filed by Individuals Alleging Property, Personal Injury or Bodily Injury Arising from Exposure to Asbestos [Dkt. No. 1003],
Dkt. No. 1149, In re The Budd Company, Inc.,
No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2015);
Emergency Motion of the Ofcial Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants to Extend
Time for Parties to Respond to the Sixth Omnibus
Objection of the Debtor to Claims Filed by Individuals Alleging Property, Personal Injury or Bodily
Injury Arising from Exposure to Asbestos [Dkt.
No. 1003] and to Reduce Notice pursuant to Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 9006(C) and 9007, Dkt. No. 1151, In
re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr.
N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2015).
48

Ofcial Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants v. The Budd Co. (In re The Budd Co.), No.
16-cv-998 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2016).
120. See Memorandum Opinion on Motion of Asbestos
Committee to Modify Stay as to Asbestos Claimants
(Dkt. 1204), Dkt. No. 1569, In re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Feb. 10,
2016).
121. Id.
122. See Order Granting Joint Motion to Alter or Amend
Order Modifying the Automatic Stay, Dkt. No.
1654, In re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 1411873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. March 10, 2016); Order
Granting Second Joint Motion to Alter or Amend
Order Modifying the Automatic Stay, Dkt. No.
1740, In re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 1411873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2016); Order
Granting Second [sic] Joint Motion to Alter or
Amend Order Modifying the Automatic Stay, Dkt.
No. 1784, In re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 1411873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2016).
123. See Ninth Amended Chapter 11 Plan for The Budd
Company, Inc. dated May 4, 2016, Dkt. No. 1797,
In re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 14-11873
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. May 4, 2016); Disclosure Statement for the Ninth Amended Chapter 11 Plan for
The Budd Company, Inc. dated May 4, 2016 at II-1
and II-17, Dkt. No. 1798, In re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. May 4,
2016).
124. See Order Authorizing Debtor to Enter into Cost
Sharing Agreement with Participating Carriers for
Defense and Indemnication of Budd AsbestosRelated Bodily Injury Claims, Dkt. No. 1864, In
MEALEYS
re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr.

N.D. Ill. May 31, 2016).
125. See Order Conrming Ninth Amended Chapter 11
Plan for The Budd Company, Inc. dated May 4,
2016, Dkt. No. 1913, In re The Budd Company,
Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 27,
2016).
126. See Notice of Effective Date of Ninth Amended
Chapter 11 Plan for The Budd Company, Inc.
dated May 4, 2016, Dkt. No. 1984, In re The
Budd Company, Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D.
Ill. Aug. 2, 2016).
127. See Order Designating TIG Insurance Company a
Settling Asbestos Insurance Company Entitled to
the Benets of the Asbestos Permanent Channeling
Injunction Issued Pursuant to the Conrmed Chapter 11 Plan, Dkt. No. 324, In re Christy Refractories
Co., No. 08-48541 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Oct. 9,
2013); Order Designating National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as
a Settling Asbestos Insurance Company Entitled to
the Benets of the Asbestos Permanent Channeling
Injunction Pursuant to the Conrmed Plan, Dkt.
No. 330, In re Christy Refractories Co., No. 0848541 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. July 30, 2014); Order
Designating United States Fire Insurance Company
as a Settling Asbestos Insurance Company Entitled
to the Benets of the Asbestos Permanent Channeling Injunction Pursuant to the Conrmed Chapter
11 Plan, Dkt. No. 337, In re Christy Refractories
Co., No. 08-48541 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Apr. 6, 2016).
128. See Consent Order Resolving Appeal of Order Conrming Plan of Liquidation, Dkt. No. 105, In re
Consolidated Aluminum Corp., No. 13-37149
(Bankr. D.N.J. July 28, 2014).
131. See (1) Findings of Fact, (2) Conclusions of Law, (3)

Order and Notice of Certain Bar Dates, and (4)
Order Regarding Conrmation of the Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization in Respect of The Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines Limited (As
Modied November 16, 2011), Dkt. No. 7254, In
re The Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines
Limited, No. 04-11300 (JKF) (Bankr. D. Del.
Dec. 21, 2012).
132. See Order Afrming Conrmation of Amended
Modied November 16, 2011), Issuing Channeling
Injunction Under 11 U.S.C. 524(g), Issuing the
Mines Liquidating Injunction Under 11 U.S.C.
105(a), and Adopting Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the Memorandum Opinion Overruling Objections to the Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization, Dkt. No. 48, In re The Flintkote
Company and Flintkote Mines Limited, No. 13-cv00227 (D. Del. July 10, 2014).
133. See Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement
Regarding the Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization in Respect of The Flintkote Company and
Flintkote Mines Limited (As Modied February 9,
2015), Dkt. No. 8705, In re The Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines Limited, No. 04-11300
(MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 9, 2015); Amended
Modied February 9, 2015), Dkt. No. 8706, In re
The Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines Limited, No. 04-11300 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 9,
2015).
129. See Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,

and Order Approving the Debtors Disclosure Statement on a Final Basis and Conrming Debtors Plan
of Liquidation, Dkt. No. 104, In re Consolidated
Aluminum Corp., No. 13-37149 (Bankr. D.N.J.
July 28, 2014).
134. See (1) Findings of Fact, (2) Conclusions of Law, (3)

Order and Notice of Certain Bar Dates, and (4)
Order Regarding Conrmation of the Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization in Respect of the Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines Limited (As
Modied February 9, 2015), Dkt. No. 9059, In re
The Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines
Limited, No. 04-11300 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del.
Aug. 10, 2015).
130. See Final Decree, Dkt. No. 122, In re Consolidated

Aluminum Corp., No. 13-37149 (Bankr. D.N.J.
Apr., 22, 2015).
135. See Order, Dkt. No. 2, In re The Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines Limited, No. 15-mc00204 (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2015).
49
MEALEYS
136. See Order, Doc. No. 003112096511, In re: Flintkote Company, No. 14-3367 (3rd Cir. Oct. 8,
2015).
149. Id. at 8.
137. See Order Approving Settlement Agreement, Policy

Buyback, and Mutual Release between Debtors and
Travelers, Dkt. No. 8898, In re The Flintkote Company and Flintkote Mines Limited, No. 04-11300
(MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. May 26, 2015).
151. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

Debtors Motion for Leave to Serve Subpoena on
Manville Trust, Dkt. No. 4721, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr.
W.D.N.C. July 24, 2015).
138. See Order on Trust Payments, Applicability of a

Bond, and Motions to Seal, Dkt. No. 156, Flintkote
Co., et al., v. Aviva PLC, et al., No. 3:15-cv-01638SI (N.D. Cal. April 4, 2016).
152. See Debtors Response to Motion of the Ofcial

Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants
for Protective Order Regarding Debtors Discovery
to One Hundred and Eleven Law Firms at 1-2, Dkt.
No. 5042, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC,
No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2015);
Motion of the Ofcial Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants for Protective Order Regarding Debtors Discovery to One Hundred and Eleven
Law Firms, Dkt. No. 4936, In re Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C.
Oct. 27, 2015).
139. See id. at 4.

140. See id. at 24-25.
141. See Order on Bond Amount, Dkt. No. 161, Flintkote Co., et al., v. Aviva PLC, et al., No. 3:15-cv01638-SI (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2016).
142. See Order on Debtors Motion to Establish Bar Date
for Settled Asbestos Claims, Dkt. No. 3854, In re
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, No. 10-31607
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. July 9, 2014).
143. See Debtors Second Amended Plan of Reorganization, Dkt. No. 4306, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C.
Jan. 14, 2015).
144. See Disclosure Statement for Debtors Second
Amended Plan of Reorganization at 1, Dkt. No.
4316, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC,
No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2015).
145. See Order Approving Disclosure Statement and
Establishing Asbestos Claims Bar Date and Procedures for Solicitation, Dkt. No. 4542, In re Garlock
Sealing Technologies, LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr.
W.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2015).
150. Id. at 13.
153. See Amended Notice of Proposed Agenda of Matters

Scheduled for Hearing on January 6, 2016 at 9:30
a.m., Dkt. No. 5201, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C.
Jan. 5, 2016). See also Disclosure Statement for
Joint Plan of Reorganization of Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, et al. and OldCo, LLC, Proposed
Successor by Merger to Coltec Industries Inc. at 35,
Dkt. No. 5332, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies,
LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. May 20,
2016).
154. See Joint Plan of Reorganization of Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, et al. and OldCo, LLC, Proposed Successor by Merger to Coltec Industries
Inc., Dkt. No. 5331, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C.
May 20, 2016).
147. Id.
155. See Disclosure Statement for Joint Plan of Reorganization of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, et al.
and OldCo, LLC, Proposed Successor by Merger to
Coltec Industries Inc. at 26-27, Dkt. No. 5332, In re
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, No. 10-31607
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. May 20, 2016).
148. Id. at 5-6.
156. Id.
146. Id. at 4.
50
MEALEYS
157. See Order Approving Disclosure Statement and

Establishing Conrmation Procedures, Dkt. No.
5445, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC,
No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. July 29, 2016).
167. See Mt. McKinley Insurance Companys and Everest

Reinsurance Companys Motion for Relief from
Judgment, Dkt. No. 90, Mt. McKinley Insurance
Company v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 13-cv01639-JFC (W.D. Pa. March 26, 2015).
158. Id. at } 12.

168. Id. at 2.
159. Id. at } 22.
160. See Order, Dkt. No. 78, Nicholl Claimants v. Maryland Casualty Co., et al. (In re Lloyd E. Mitchell
Inc.), No. 14-1327 (4th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014).
161. See Order Dismissing Debtors Chapter 11 Case,
Dkt. No. 1267, In re Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., No.
06-13250 (Bankr. D. Md. Nov. 5, 2014).
162. See Order Afrming the Bankruptcy Courts Order
Conrming the Plan of Reorganization of Metex
Mfg. Corporation Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 5, In re Metex Manufacturing Corp., Case No. 14-MISC-00213-P1 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 1, 2014).
163. See Notice of Effective Date of Plan of Reorganization of Metex Mfg. Corporation Under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 600, In re Metex
Manufacturing Corp., Case No. 12-14554 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2014).
164. See Dismissal Agreement Pursuant to Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 8001(c)(2), Dkt. No. 52, Mt. McKinley
Insurance Company, et al. v. Pittsburgh Corning
Corp., No. 13-cv-01639-JFC (W.D. Pa. March 14,
2014); Order re Stipulation of Dismissal, Mt.
McKinley Insurance Company v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 13-cv-01639-JFC (W.D. Pa.
March 17, 2014).
165. See Order, Dkt. No. 82, Mt. McKinley Insurance
Company v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 13-cv01639-JFC (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2014).
166. See Mt. McKinley Insurance Companys and Everest
Reinsurance Companys Notice of Appeal to United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Dkt.
No. 86, Mt. McKinley Insurance Company v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 13-cv-01639-JFC (W.D.
Pa. Oct. 29, 2014).
169. See Order, Dkt. No. 113, Mt. McKinley Insurance

Company v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 13-cv01639-JFC (W.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2015); Mt. McKinley Insurance Companys and Everest Reinsurance
Companys Notice of Appeal to United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Dkt. No.
114, Mt. McKinley Insurance Company v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 13-cv-01639-JFC (W.D.
Pa. Aug. 13, 2015).
170. See Stipulation for Dismissal of Appeals, Doc. No.
003112172306, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp.,
Nos. 14-4329 and 15-2954 (3rd Cir. Jan. 6,
2016); Order, Doc. No. 003112172637, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., Nos. 14-4329 and 15-2954
(3rd Cir. Jan. 7, 2016).
171. See Plan Proponents Motion for Approval of Technical Amendments to the Modied Third Amended
Plan of Reorganization dated January 29, 2009, Dkt.
No. 10484, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 0022876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2016).
172. See Order Approving Technical Amendments to the
Modied Third Amended Plan of Reorganization
dated January 29, 2009, Dkt. No. 10551, In re
Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr.
W.D. Pa. March 24, 2016).
173. See Notice of Filing of Composite Plan Documents,
Dkt. No. 10572, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp.,
No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. March 29, 2016).
174. See Notice of Effective Date of Modied Third
Amended Plan of Reorganization of Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation dated January 29, 2009, as
Amended, Dkt. No. 10616, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Apr. 26,
2016).
175. See Motion of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation for
an Order Entering Final Decree Closing its Chapter
51
11 Case Pursuant to Section 350(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 10751, In re Pittsburgh
Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.
Aug. 29, 2016).
176. See Order Scheduling Date for Response and Hearing on Motion, Dkt. No. 10752, In re Pittsburgh
Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.
Aug. 31, 2016).
177. See Order Denying Appeal from Conrmation of
Revised Plan of Reorganization, Dkt. No. 76, OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Plant Insulation Co., Case No.
14-01200 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014); Order Afrming Conrmation of Revised Plan of Reorganization,
Dkt. No. 77, OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Plant Insulation Co., Case No. 14-01200 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18,
2014).
178. See Notice of Occurrence of Modied Effective
Date, Establishment of the Trust, Issuance of the
Injunctions, Effectiveness of the Discharge and
Effectiveness of Releases and Exculpations; and
Notice of Administrative Claim Bar Date and Rejection Claims Bar Date, Dkt. No. 2860, In re Plant
Insulation Company, Case No. 09-31347 (Bankr.
N.D. Cal. Oct., 2, 2014).
179. See Complaint, Dkt. No. 447, In re Rapid-American
Corp., No. 13-10687 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. March 31,
2015).
180. See Second Amended Complaint at }} 29, 30, Dkt.
No. 26, Rapid-American Corp. v. Travelers Cas. &
Sur. Co, (In re Rapid-American Corp.), No. 1501095 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015).
181. See Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of
their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt.
No. 43, Rapid-American Corp. v. Travelers Cas. &
Sur. Co. (In re Rapid-American Corp.), No. 1501095 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2016).
182. See Plaintiffs Motion for and Memorandum in
Support of Summary Judgment that Travelers
Excess Policies are Triggered at such Time as
Rapid has Incurred Sufcient Liability to Exhaust
the Underlying Coverage, Dkt. No. 47, RapidAmerican Corp. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. (In
52
MEALEYS
re Rapid-American Corp.), No. 15-01095 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2016).
183. See Memorandum of Law in Support of National
Unions Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that National Union Policy No. 122-93-43
Has a Total Aggregate Limit of Liability of $7 Million, Dkt. No. 56, Rapid-American Corp. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re Rapid-American Corp.),
No. 15-01095 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. March 10, 2016);
Memorandum of Law in Support of National
Unions Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
that the Coverage Obligations of National Unions
Excess Policies do not Attach until all Underlying
Coverage is Exhausted by Actual Payment of Claims
or Losses, Dkt. No. 62, Rapid-American Corp. v.
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re Rapid-American
Corp.), No. 15-01095 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. March 10,
2016).
184. See Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion and in Support of Travelers CrossMotion for Summary Judgment that the St. Paul
Policy is not Attached until the Underlying Limits
have been Paid by or on Behalf of Rapid-American
Corporation, Dkt. No. 59, Rapid-American Corp.,
et al. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., et al. (In re RapidAmerican Corp.), No. 15-01095 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
March 10, 2016); Travelers Memorandum of Law
in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion and in Support
of Travelers Cross-Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Limits, Dkt. No. 67, Rapid-American
Corp. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re RapidAmerican Corp.), No. 15-01095 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
March 15, 2016).
185. See Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs Motions for
Partial Summary Judgment and Granting Defendants Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 94, Rapid-American Corp. v.
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. (In re Rapid-American
Corp.), No. 15-1095 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 7,
2016).
186. See id. at 27 & n.2.
187. See Stipulated Order Approving Agreement between
Chapter 7 Trustee and Certain Insurers and Lifting
the Automatic Stay for Assertion of Asbestos Claims
MEALEYS
Subject to Certain Conditions, Dkt. No. 112, In re

Resillo Press Pad Co., Case No. 13-02916 (Bankr.
N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2014).
188. See Bankruptcy Case Closed and Trustee Discharged, Dkt. No. 124, In re Resillo Press Pad
Co., Case No. 13-02916 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Feb. 4,
2015).
189. See Motion of Republic Powdered Metals, Inc. and
NMBFiL, Inc. for an Order (I) Directing the Joint
Administration of their Chapter 11 Cases and (II)
Extending to them Certain Relief Granted to Specialty Products Holding Corp. and Bondex International, Inc. at } 1, Dkt. No. 4910, In re Specialty
Products Holding Corp. No. 10-11780 (PJW)
(Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 31, 2014).
190. See Order Establishing Bar Dates for Filing Proofs of
Claim, Other Than Asbestos Personal Injury
Claims, and Approving Related Relief, Dkt. No.
5021, In re Specialty Products Holding Corp. No.
10-11780 (PJW) (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 26, 2014).
191. See Joint Plan of Reorganization of Specialty Products Holding Corp., Bondex International, Inc.,
Republic Powdered Metals, Inc., and NMBFiL,
Inc. at 1, Dkt. No. 5117, In re Specialty Products
Holding Corp. No. 10-11780 (PJW) (Bankr. D.
Del. Oct. 23, 2014).
192. See id. at Arts. IV.E and IV.I.2.
Products Holding Corp., No. 10-11780 (PJW)

(Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 23, 2014).
196. See Joint Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Appeals
and Related Proceeding, Dkt. No. 5537, In re Specialty Products Holding Corp., No. 10-11780
(PJW) (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 23, 2015); So Ordered,
re 34 Joint Motion to Dismiss Based upon Rule
8023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
for Civ. No. 13-1244 and Civ. No. 13-1245 and as
Moot for Miscellaneous Action No. 13-0194, Dkt.
No. 5538, In re Specialty Products Holding Corp.,
No. 10-11780 (PJW) (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 24,
2015).
197. See Complaint, Transaction ID 55665855, AIU
Insurance Co. v. Philips Electronics North America,
No. 9852 (Del. Ch. July 2, 2014).
198. See Memorandum Opinion at 16, Transaction ID
57334780, AIU Insurance Co. v. Philips Electronics
North America, No. 9852 (Del. Ch. June 4, 2015).
199. See id. at 19-20.
200. See Order Regarding Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
Defendant, the T H Agriculture & Nutrition,
L.L.C. Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, to Produce
Preliminary Information in Support of Plaintiffs
Audit of the Trusts Payments and Distributions to
Claimants, and to Enter a Condentiality Order,
Transaction ID 58541770, AIU Insurance Company v. Philips Electronics North America, No.
9852 (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 2016).
193. See id. at Art. IX.B.2.

194. See Order Conrming the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Specialty Products Holding Corp., Bondex
International, Inc., Republic Powdered Metals, Inc.,
and NMBFiL, Inc., as Modied, Dkt. No. 5261, In
re Specialty Products Holding Corp., No. 10-11780
(PJW) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 10, 2014).
195. See Notice of (I) Entry of Order Conrming the
Joint Plan of Reorganization of Specialty Products
Holding Corp., Bondex International, Inc., Republic Powdered Metals, Inc., and NMBFiL, Inc.; (II)
Effective Date and (III) Bar Date for Certain Administrative Claims, Professional Fee Claims and Rejection Damage Claims, Dkt. No. 5291, In re Specialty
201. See Order Regarding Condentiality of Audit Information, Transaction ID 58541770, AIU Insurance
Company v. Philips Electronics North America, No.
9852 (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 2016).
202. See Modied First Amended Plan of Reorganization
of United Gilsonite Laboratories Under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 2013, In re United Gilsonite Laboratories, No. 11-2032 (Bankr.
M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2014).
203. Id. at 27.
204. See Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order Approving Exit Facility and Conrming the
53
MEALEYS
Modied First Amended Plan of Reorganization of

United Gilsonite Laboratories Under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code, Dkt. No. 2190, In re United
Gilsonite Laboratories, No. 11-02032 (Bankr. M.D.
Pa. Dec. 8, 2014); Order Under 11 U.S.C.
524(g)(3)(A) Afrming Bankruptcy Courts Conrmation of Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan and
Issuance of Channeling Injunction, Dkt. No. 12,
In re United Gilsonite Laboratories, No. 3:14-cv02045 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2014).
205. See Orders Approving the Debtors Entry into Settlement Agreements with Insurers, Dkt. Nos. 2192,
2194, 2196, 2198, 2201, and 2203, In re United
Gilsonite Laboratories, No. 11-02032 (Bankr. M.D.
Pa. Dec. 8, 2014).
206. See Notice of (I) Entry of Order Conrming the
Modied First Amended Plan of Reorganization of
United Gilsonite Laboratories Under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code; (II) Occurrence of the Effective Date; (III) Entry of Injunctions and Releases;
and (IV) Plan Bar Dates, Dkt. No. 2383, In re United Gilsonite Laboratories, No. 11-02032 (Bankr.
M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2014).
207. See Notice of Filing of Summary of Principal Terms
for a Consensual Plan of Reorganization for Yarway
Corporation, Dkt. No. 687, In re Yarway Corporation, No. 13-11025 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 12,
2014).
212. See Order, Dkt. No. 3, In re Yarway Corporation,

No. 15-mc-00085-LPS (D. Del. July 14, 2015).
213. See Notice of (A) Entry of Conrmation Order, (B)
Effective Date of the Plan, (C) Substantial Consummation of the Plan, and (D) Bar Date for Administrative Expense Claims Including Professional Fee
Claims, Dkt. No. 987, In re Yarway Corporation,
No. 13-11025 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 19, 2015).
214. See In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504
B.R. 71, 85 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014).
215. See Reorganized Debtors First Omnibus Objection
to Proofs of Claim Asserting Asbestos Personal
Injury Claims, Dkt. No. 5636, In re Specialty Products Holding Corp. No. 10-11780 (PJW) (Bankr.
D. Del. Aug. 8, 2016).
216. See Order Disallowing with Prejudice Proofs of
Claim Asserting Asbestos Personal Injury Claims,
Dkt. No. 5667, In re Specialty Products Holding
Corp. No. 10-11780 (PJW) (Bankr. D. Del.
Aug. 18, 2016).
217. See Order, Dkt. No. 26, In re The Budd Company,
Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2014).
218. See Response of Debtor to Motion of Court to Set
Claims Bar Date, Dkt. No. 317, In re The Budd
Company, Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
July 18, 2014).
208. Id.
209. See Plan of Reorganization for Yarway Corporation
Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Proposed by Yarway Corporation and Tyco International PLC, Dkt. No. 705, In re Yarway
Corporation, No. 13-11025 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del.
Dec. 22, 2014).
219. See Objection of The Ofcial Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants to Fixing of an Asbestos Claims Bar Date and to Debtors Proposed Bar
Date Procedures and Forms, Dkt. No. 511, In re
The Budd Company, Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr.
N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2014).
220. Id.
210. See id., at 1.1.72, 1.1.84, 1.1.105, 10.3.

211. See Order Conrming the Plan of Reorganization for
Yarway Corporation Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Proposed by Yarway Corporation and
Tyco International PLC, Dkt. No. 859, In re Yarway Corporation, No. 13-11025 (BLS) (Bankr. D.
Del. April 8, 2015).
54
221. See Order (I) Establishing Bar Dates for Filing Proofs
of Claim, (II) Approving Form and Manner of
Notice Thereof, and (III) Granting Related Relief,
14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2014).
222. Id.
MEALEYS

Ofcial Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants v. The Budd Co. (In re The Budd Co.),
No. 15-cv-9492 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2016); Notication of Docket Entry, Dkt. No. 16, The Ofcial
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants
v. The Budd Co. (In re The Budd Co.), No. 16cv-998 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2016).
224. See In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 522 B.R.
520 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015).
225. See Order (A) Setting Bar Date for Filing Asbestos
Proofs of Claim, (B) Approving the Form of and
Manner for Filing Asbestos Proofs of Claim, and
(C) Approving Notice Thereof, Dkt. No. 4997, In
re Energy Future Holdings Corp., Case No. 1410979 (Bankr. D. Del. July 15, 2015), as amended
by Dkt. No. 5171, In re Energy Future Holdings
Corp., Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del. July 30,
2015).
226. See Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of
Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al., Pursuant to
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code as it Applies to
the EFH Debtors and EFIH Debtors at Arts. III.B.3
and VIII.A, Dkt. No. 9199-1, In re Energy Future
Del. Aug. 5, 2016).
227. See In re Motors Liquidation Co., ___ F.3d ___,
2016 WL 3766237 (2d Cir. July 13, 2016).

14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. May 4, 2016).
235. Id.
236. See Second Amended Disclosure Statement with
Respect to Second Amended Plan of Liquidation
Proposed by the Debtors at p. 34, Dkt. No. 1246,
In re Reichhold Holdings US, Inc., Case No. 1412237 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 19, 2015).
237. See Second Amended Plan of Liquidation Pursuant
to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Proposed by
the Debtors at Art. III.G.2, Dkt. No. 1247, In re
(Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 19, 2015).
238. Disclosure Statement for the Plan of Liquidation of
Henry Vogt Machine Co. at n.1, Dkt. No. 416, In
re Henry Vogt Machine Co., Case No. 12-34186
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 14, 2014).
239. See Amended Plan of Liquidation of Henry Vogt
Machine Co. at Arts. IV.E, and IV.L, Dkt. No.
424, In re Henry Vogt Machine Co., Case No.
12-34186 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 22, 2014).
240. See Order Conrming Ninth Amended Chapter 11
Plan for The Budd Company, Inc. dated May 4,
2016 at 22, Dkt. No. 1913, In re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 14-11873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 27,
2016).
228. Id. at *13.

229. Id. at *14.
230. Id. at *16.
241. See In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 522 B.R.

520, 539 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015).
242. See In re Combustion Engineering, Inc., 391 F.3d
190, 233-34 (3d Cir. 2004).
231. Id. at *21.

232. See Order, Dkt. No. 443, In re Motors Liquidation
Co., No. 15-2844 (2d Cir. Sept. 14, 2016).
233. See Disclosure Statement Redline at p. 17, Dkt. No.
1799-2, In re The Budd Company, Inc., No. 1411873 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. May 4, 2016).
234. See Ninth Amended Chapter 11 Plan for The Budd
Company, Inc. Dated May 4, 2016 at Art. IV.J.3,
243. See Motions of Honeywell International, Inc. for

Access to Rule 2019 Exhibits, Dkt. No. 21106, In
re Owens Corning Corp., Nos. 00-3837, 00-3854
(Bankr. D. Del. June 30, 2016); Dkt. No. 10813, In
re Armstrong World Industries, Inc., No. 00-4471
(Bankr. D. Del. June 30, 2016); Dkt. No. 32718, In
re W.R. Grace & Co., No. 01-01139 (Bankr. D.
Del. June 30, 2016); Dkt. No. 12711, In re USG
Corp., No. 01-2094 (Bankr. D. Del. June 30,
2016); Dkt. No. 4094, In re U.S. Mineral Products
55
Co., No. 01-2471 (Bankr. D. Del. June 30, 2016);

Dkt. No. 10351, In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., No.
02-10429 (Bankr. D. Del. June 30, 2016); Dkt. No.
3751, In re ACandS, Inc., No. 02-12687 (Bankr. D.
Del. June 30, 2016); Dkt. No. 3502, In re Combustion Engineering, Inc. No. 03-10495 (Bankr. D.
Del. June 30, 2016); Dkt. No. 9338, In re The
Flintkote Co., No. 04-11300 (Bankr. D. Del.
June 30, 2016).
244. See e.g., Motion of Honeywell International, Inc. for
Access to Rule 2019 Exhibits at 2-3, Dkt. No. 9338,
In re The Flintkote Co., No. 04-11300 (Bankr. D.
Del. June 30, 2016).
245. Id. at 4-5.
246. Id. at 8-12.
247. See e.g., Joinder of Ford Motor Company to Motion
of Honeywell International, Inc. for Access to Rule
2019 Exhibits, Dkt. No. 9339, In re The Flintkote
Co., No. 04-11300 (Bankr. D. Del. July 6, 2016).
248. See e.g., Objection of The North American Refractories Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement
Trust Advisory Committee to Honeywells Motion
for Access to Rule 2019 Exhibits, Dkt. No. 9346, In
re The Flintkote Co., No. 04-11300 (Bankr. D. Del.
July 26, 2016); Joinder of Certain Trust Advisory
Committees to the Objection of The North American Refractories Company Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement Trust Advisory Committee to Honeywells Motion for Access to Rule 2019 Exhibits,
Dkt. No. 9348, In re The Flintkote Co., No. 0411300 (Bankr. D. Del. July 26, 2016).
249. See e.g., Emergency Motion of The North American
Refractories Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust Advisory Committee to (1) Consolidate and Continue Hearings and (2) Appoint Rule
56
MEALEYS
2019 Expert and Referee, Dkt. No. 9360, In re

The Flintkote Co., No. 04-11300 (Bankr. D. Del.
Aug. 4, 2016).
250. See e.g., Omnibus Objection of Honeywell International Inc. to (I) Emergency Motion of The North
American Refractories Company Asbestos Personal
Injury Settlement Trust Advisory Committee to (1)
Consolidate and Continue Hearings and (2)
Appoint Rule 2019 Expert and Referee and (II)
Motion of The North American Refractories
Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement
Trust Advisory Committee to Shorten Notice on
its Emergency Motion of The North American
Refractories Company Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement Trust Advisory Committee to (1) Consolidate and Continue Hearings and (2) Appoint
Rule 2019 Expert and Referee, Dkt. No. 9364,
In re The Flintkote Co., No. 04-11300 (Bankr.
D. Del. Aug. 5, 2016).
251. See e.g., Letter from The Hon. Kevin Gross to Judith
K. Fitzgerald, Esq., Dkt. No. 9376, In re The Flintkote Co., No. 04-11300 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 24,
2016).
252. See e.g., Letter from Judith K. Fitzgerald to The
Hon. Kevin Gross, Dkt. No. 9382, In re The Flintkote Co., No. 04-11300 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 8,
2016).
253. See e.g., Notice of Hearing, Dkt. No. 9379, In re
The Flintkote Co., No. 04-11300 (Bankr. D. Del.
Aug. 31, 2016).
254. See API, Inc. Asbestos Settlement Trust, Annual
Report of the Trustee, 2015, http://apiincasbestossettlementtrust.com/documents/Annual%20Report
%20of%20the%20Trustee%202015.pdf (last visited
Aug. 24, 2016). I
MEALEYS: ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY REPORT

edited by Emerson Heffner
The Report is produced monthly by
1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1655, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA

Telephone: (215)564-1788 1-800-MEALEYS (1-800-632-5397)
Email: mealeyinfo@lexisnexis.com
Web site: http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys
ISSN 1537-2065

Crowell and Moring Where Are They Now, Part 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crowell and Moring Where Are They Now, Part 8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crowell and Moring Where Are They Now, Part 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEALEYS

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

[Editors Note: The authors are attorneys at Crowell &

Since 2001, we have been reporting in these pages on

Eagle, Inc. On September 22, 2015, Eagle led a

Who Filed the Most Recent Asbestos

Before ling its bankruptcy petition, Eagle was in

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

Energy Future Holdings. On April 29, 2014, Energy

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

insurance assets are transferred to the liquidating

Oakfabcos operations consist solely of defending and

Reichhold Holdings. On September 30, 2014,

Oakfabco intends to le a plan of liquidation, which

On January 12, 2015, the court approved the sale of

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

On September 15, 2015, the debtors led a plan of

Significant Developments In Pending

Budd Company. On July 30, 2014, the U.S. Trustee

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

each claimant to provide information about alleged

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

objection.118 That court subsequently granted the

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

to California Ins. Code 1616, and ordered the parties

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

on the claim holders behalf.148 With respect to

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

On August 12, 2015, the district court denied the

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

Bondex (the Initial Debtors) and two afliates,

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

of Chancery against PENAC, THAN, and the

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

Yarway. On December 12, 2014, Yarway informed

Overview Of Recent Asbestos Bankruptcy

Asbestos proofs of claim and bar dates. Following

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

Subsequently, in EFHC, the bankruptcy court went

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

payment that arose pre-petition or resulted from

limits in excess of $843 million to pay asbestos

With respect to due process, the court found that Old

Even though none of these debtors used the 524(g)

Asbestos Bankruptcy Report

asbestos claimants, based on suspicions of fraud. As

Vol. 16, #2 September 2016

referee.249 Honeywell has opposed the emergency

After 15 years of reporting on asbestos bankruptcy