U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 18 asbestos decisions from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (2003–2022). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal bankruptcy court

Decisions

• In re Paddock Enterprises, LLC (2022). The court denied Paddock's and the O-I Trust parties' motions to quash the North Carolina debtors' subpoenas for claims database information, but ruled that Paddock may recover its reasonable expense of responding; the question of ballot discoverability was left for further submissions.
• In re Imerys Talc America, Inc. (2021). The court granted Arnold & Itkin's motion to disregard Trammel's changed votes, granted Williams Hart's Rule 3018 motion to change its votes to accept, denied Bevan & Associates' Rule 3018 motion and treated its master ballot as withdrawn, and denied J&J's motion to designate votes (moot as to Trammel and Bevan).
• In re Energy Future Holdings Corp. (2020). The bankruptcy court denied the motions of Denis and Meri Bergschneider and Kaye Heinzmann to file late asbestos proofs of claim, ruling for the reorganized Debtors and Sempra Energy.
• In re Energy Future Holdings Corp. (2015). The bankruptcy court granted the Debtors' Bar Date Motion and ruled that a bar date will be set for all prepetition claims, including unmanifested asbestos claims, over the objection of the asbestos personal injury law firms, which it found lacked standing.
• In re Motions for Access OF Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (2013). The District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's orders denying Garlock access to the Rule 2019 exhibits, granting Garlock access subject to use limitations and holding that reopening closed cases and intervention were unnecessary.
• In re Specialty Products Holding Corp. (2013). The bankruptcy court rejected the Debtors' expert's low estimate, adopted the estimates of the Asbestos Creditors' Committee and Future Claimants' Representative experts, and set Debtors' present and future mesothelioma liability at $1.1 billion net present value, or $1.166 billion for all asbestos injury claims.
• In re Flintkote Co. (2012). The bankruptcy court overruled Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited's objections, confirmed Flintkote's amended joint plan with its § 524(g) asbestos trust, and recommended that the District Court affirm confirmation and the § 524(g) injunction.
• In re the Flintkote Company (2012). The bankruptcy court overruled Imperial Tobacco Canada's objections, confirmed the Flintkote and Flintkote Mines reorganization plan with its § 524(g) asbestos trust injunction, and recommended that the District Court affirm, so the plan proponents (the Debtors, the asbestos claimants' committee and the future claimants' representative) prevailed over ITCAN.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (2012). The district court, sitting as a bankruptcy appellate court, denied Anderson Memorial Hospital's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from its order affirming confirmation of W.R. Grace's reorganization plan, so Grace prevailed.
• In re ACandS, Inc. (2011). The bankruptcy court denied Garlock Sealing Technologies' motions to intervene, to reopen the closed asbestos bankruptcy cases, and for access to the Rule 2019 statements, ruling for the debtors and the asbestos claimants' committees.
• In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (2010). The bankruptcy court granted Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul Products summary judgment, sustained their objection, and disallowed PepsiAmericas' claims 6093 and 6441 because PAS had no claim against the Debtors.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (2009). The district court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's order granting W.R. Grace summary judgment that the State of California's sixteen asbestos property damage claims were time-barred, ruling for the State and finding a fact question on when contamination occurred.
• In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc. (2008). The bankruptcy court denied the Plan Supporters' request to approve the Plan A Settlement, finding that a Section 524(g) channeling injunction could not protect Cooper and Pneumo Abex, so the Plan B Settlement stood.
• In re Grossman's Inc. (2008). The bankruptcy court ruled for Mary and Gordan Van Brunt and against JELD-WEN, holding that the Van Brunts' asbestos claims arose after the Grossman's plan's effective date and were not discharged or barred by the Confirmation Order.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (2006). The bankruptcy court granted W.R. Grace's summary judgment motion in part, finding no evidence that Zonolite Attic Insulation poses an unreasonable risk of harm, and denied the ZAI Claimants' motion except for an order that the undisputed facts of asbestos contamination and fiber release on disturbance were established.
• In re ACandS, Inc. (2004). The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of ACandS's Chapter 11 plan, ruling that it did not meet the requirements of § 524(g) and was not proposed in good faith, which favored objector Travelers over the debtor and the plan's supporters.
• In re Combustion Engineering (2003). The bankruptcy court approved Combustion Engineering's disclosure statement but withheld confirmation of its prepackaged plan until the debtor filed more information on notice to, and payment of, creditors with claims only against Lummus and Basic; it overruled the other objections, including the insurers'.
• In re Usg Corp. (2003). The bankruptcy court declined to adopt USG's proposal for a merits-based estimation of all roughly 190,000 asbestos claims and instead ordered a cancer-only claims bar date and claim form, with an estimation hearing afterward at which USG may present its defenses.