-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
1/146
No. 08-3650
In the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
IN RE: GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL.,
Appellants,
v.
GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES,INC., ET AL.,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT AIG MEMBER COMPANIES
ZEICHNER ELLMAN &KRAUSE LLP
Michael S. Davis
575 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
TUCKER ARENSBERG, PCBeverly Weiss Manne
1500 One PPG Place
Pittsburgh PA 15222
BIVONA & COHENJoseph Boury
88 Pine Street
New York, NY 10005
Counsel for the Appellant, AIG Member Companies, including National
Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Insurance Company of
the State of Pennsylvania, Lexington Insurance Company and AmericanHome Assurance Company
eceived and Filed
-3650
/19/08
arcia M. Waldron,
erk
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
2/146
CORPORA TE DISCLOSURE STATEM ENT ANDSTATEMENT O F FINANCIAL INTERESTPursuant to Rule 26.1 and Third Circuit LAR 26.1, Appellant, AIG MemberCompanies make the following disclosure:1) For non-governmental corporate parties please list all parent corporations:
Am erican International Group, Inc.2) For non-governmental corporate parties please list all publicly held companies thathold 10% or more of the party's stock:
Am erican International Group, Inc.3) If there is a publicly held corporation which is not a party to the proceeding beforethis Court but which has as a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding,please identify all such parties and specify the nature of the financial interest orinterests:Am erican International Group, Inc. a publicly held corporation that is not a partyto this appeal, as the parent corporation of the AIG Member Companies, has aninterest in the financial outcome of the proceeding.Dated: November, 18, 2008
TUCKER ARENSBERG, P.C.1500 One PPG PlacePittsburgh, PA 15222(412) 594-5525Email: bmanne@,tuckerlaw.comCounsel for Appellant National Union Fire InsuranceCompany of Pittsburgh, Pa; Insurance Company of theState of Pennsylvania; Lexington Insurance Company;American Home Assurance Company, and any otherentities related to American International Group, Inc.that engaged in business transactions with theReorganizing Debtors
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
3/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................i
II. STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE
JURISDICTION....................................................................................1
III. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES AND PROCEEDINGS..........1
IV. STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................1
V. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.........2
VI. JOINDER OF AIG MEMBER COMPANIES .....................................2
VII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS...........................................................3
VIII. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................6
IX. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................7
THE COURTS BELOW ERRED IN CONFIRMING A
PLAN THAT PAYS OFF CLAIMS THAT WOULD NOT
BE ALLOWED UNDER APPLICABLE BANKRUPTCY
LAW TO GARNER FAVORABLE VOTING BY THE
ASBESTOS CLAIMANTS
X. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................16
COMBINED CERTIFICATIONS ................................................................18
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
4/146
(i)
I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes Page
11 U.S.C. 105......................................................................................................7, 8
11 U.S.C. 501........................................................................................................10
11 U.S.C. 502..............................................................................8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
11 U.S.C. 558........................................................................................................12
11 U.S.C. 1129................................................................................................7, 8, 9
Cases
In re Abbotts Dairies of Pa., Inc.,
788 F.2d 143 (3d Cir. 1986)......................................................................................9
Addison v. Langston ( In re Brints Cotton Marketing, Inc.),
737 F.2d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir. 1984) .................................................................11, 12
Butner v. United States,
440 U.S. 48, 99 S. Ct. 914, 59 L. Ed. 2d 136 ..........................................................11
In re Brill, 318 B.R. 49
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004) ...........................................................................................13
In re American Reserve Corp.,
840 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................12
In re Combustion Engineering, Inc.,391 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2004)...........................................................................8, 11, 12
In re Continental Airlines, Inc.,
203 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2000)...................................................................................... 8
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
5/146
(ii)
In re International Environmental Dynamics, Inc.,
718 F.2d 322, 326 (9th Cir. Cal. 1983). ....................................................................9
In re PWS Holding Corp.,228 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2000)...................................................................................8, 9
Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers,
485 U.S. 197, 206, 99 L. Ed. 2d 169, 108 S. Ct. 963 (1988).....................................8
Phillips v. A-Best Products Co.,
665 A.2d 1167, 542 Pa. 142 (1995).........................................................................15
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of America v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
549 U.S. 443, 127 S.Ct. 1199, 167 L.Ed.2d 178 (2007) ...................................11, 12
U.S. Lines, Inc. v. U.S. Lines Reorganization Trust (In re U.S. Lines, Inc.),
262 B.R. 223, (S.D.N.Y. 2001)................................................................................13
Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green,
329 U.S. 156, 67 S. Ct. 237, 91 L. Ed. 162 (1946)..................................................12
Secondary Materials
4 Collier on Bankruptcy (15th rev. ed. 2003) .........................................................11
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
6/146
-1-
II. STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
The AIG Member Companies1 join in and adopt the Statement of Subject
Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction of Appellants Hartford and Century Indemnity.
III. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES AND PROCEEDINGS
The AIG Member Companies join in and adopt the Statement of Related
Cases and Proceedings of Appellants Hartford and Century Indemnity.
IV. STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
The AIG Member Companies join in and adopt the Statement of Standard of
Review of Appellants Hartford and Century Indemnity.
1Appellant is National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA,
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Lexington Insurance Company,American Home Insurance Company, and any other entities related to American
International Group, Inc. that engaged in business transactions with the
Reorganizing Debtors and referred to collectively as the AIG Member
Companies.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
7/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -2-
V. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
The AIG Member Companies join in and adopt the Statement of Issues
Presented For Review of Appellants Hartford and Century Indemnity (Issues 1-3),
and further identify the following additional issue with respect to the AIG Member
Companies:
4. Did the bankruptcy court err in confirming a plan of reorganization
and establishment of a silica trust that contains no means of preventing the
payment of invalid silica claims, and thus threatens to decrease the recovery of
creditors with valid claims?
VI. JOINDER OF AIG MEMBER COMPANIES
The AIG Member Companies join in the Appellate Brief and associated
filings of Hartford and Century Indemnity.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
8/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -3-
VII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Appellant AIG Member Companies join in and incorporate the Statement of
the Case and the Statement of the Facts articulated by Appellants Hartford and
Century2 in their Appellate Brief.
In addition, the AIG Member Companies state as follows:
Global Industrial Technologies (GIT) and certain of its subsidiaries,
including both A.P. Green Industries, Inc. (APG) and Harbison-Walker
(collectively, the Debtors or GIT Debtors), filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases3
on February 14, 2002 (the Petition Date). All potential silica related injury
claims that existed prior to the Petition Date are pre-petition claims, including
2The other Appellants are Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First StateInsurance Company, and Twin City Fire Insurance Company (collectively,
Hartford); Century Indemnity Company, as successor to CIGNA Specialty
Company, formerly known as California Union Insurance Company, and
Westchester Fire Insurance Company, for itself and for International Insurance
Company (now known as TIG Insurance Company) (collectively, Century); and
the AIG Member Companies.
3GITs affiliate, NARCO and its subsidiary debtors (Narco) filed their chapter
11 cases in January 2002. The various GIT-related companies' cases have been
jointly administered under Case No. 02-21626. The NARCO cases were jointlyadministered under Case No. 02-20198. The Narco and GIT cases are related and
joint proceedings were held with respect to matters relating to plan confirmation
and the appeals have been consolidated before this Court. AIG Member
Companies' appeal concerns only issues arising in the GIT bankruptcy.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
9/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -4-
claims that accrued after January 1, 2000 through the Petition Date (the Post-2000
Silica Claims).
The GIT Third Amended Plan (Plan or GIT Plan) was filed on
December 28, 2005, and on June 21, 2006, the Debtors filed Technical
Amendments to the GIT Plan at (Docket 6242 with additional substantive
amendments to the Plan being filed on December 15, 2006 (Docket 6971) and
Technical Amendments were filed on October 25, 2007 (Docket 7819). See, JA
2877 et seq.
Pursuant to settlement agreements between the Debtor and the AIG Member
Companies, the AIG Member Companies are creditors of GIT and have allowed
claims against the Silica Trust. See, JA 2441 - JA2484.
As creditors of the Silica Trust, the AIG Member Companies percentage
recovery will be the same as any other Silica Trust Creditor, but thousands of tort
claimants also will be Silica Trust Creditors and will be paid from the Silica Trust,
on account of the allowance of worthless claims, reducing the overall percentage of
the recovery by the AIG Member Companies and other bona fide Silica Trust
Creditors.
The Plan provides that all pre-petition silica claims, including the Post-2000
Silica Claims, will be administered through the Silica Trust, and such claims will
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
10/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -5-
be allowed and paid based upon exposure and diagnosis alone. JA73 (193), JA
2797 (193), JA 2799 (199), JA2973-4.
That payment scheme will prevail even though Debtor testified, and the
Bankruptcy Court opined, that the Post-2000 Silica Claimants should be subject
to all defenses available to Debtors. See JA 70 and JA1042. Specifically, after
2000, Debtor had implemented safety measures and warning procedures with
respect to their products. JA1042 (we've put ourselves into the best position we
can as far as product warnings and things like that and sophisticated
intermediaries). Thus, in the absence of the GIT Plan and the Silica Trust
Distribution Procedures (TDP), many or perhaps all of the Post-2000 Silica
Claimants claims would not otherwise be paid in the tort system or even be
allowed under the Bankruptcy Code.
Under the GIT Plan and Silica Trust Distribution Procedures, the Trustees
alone have the authority to "allow" a claim and no other parties can object -- not
allowed claimants whose pro-rata distribution will be diluted by the allowance, or
insurers who will be asked to pay for the claim allowed by the Trust. JA 2968,
2972, et seq.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
11/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -6-
VIII. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The AIG Member Companies respectfully submit that in addition to the
issues raised by Hartford and Century, the Bankruptcy Court erred in confirming
the GIT Plan and issuing the Silica Channeling injunction because the GIT Plan
allows legally worthless silica-related injury claims to receive a recovery that
would not be allowable under either bankruptcy or non-bankruptcy law, and the
GIT Plan and documentation contain no provision for the assertion of valid
defenses. This allowance of such claims comes at the expense of other claims to be
paid from the Trust, including those of the AIG Member Companies. The GIT Plan
is not equitable and it should not have been confirmed.
On appeal, the District Court missed the point of AIG Member Companies
arguments -namely that the AIG Member Companies are an actual creditor of the
APG Silica Trust and as a creditor AIG Member Companies object to the plan and
establishment of a trust that allows invalid claims to dilute AIG Member
Companies valid claims against the Trust.
This objection is in addition to the objections of AIG Member Companies as
insurers, as articulated and briefed by Hartford and Century in their Appellate
brief, in which objections and Brief the AIG Member Companies join.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
12/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -7-
The additional issue raised by AIG Member Companies in the Courts below,
and thus here, is whether it was proper for those Courts to confirm a plan which
structured a mechanism for the allowance and payment of invalid claims, contrary
to the Bankruptcy Code's principles and statutory provisions and to the detriment
and dilution of rights of creditors with valid and allowed claims. Specifically, the
Plan and the Silica Trust Distribution Procedures inappropriately structure a
scheme whereby claims that would be unenforceable under applicable non-
bankruptcy law will nonetheless be allowed and paid, on a pro-rata basis, from a
limited pot of funds from which the AIG Member Companies claim is to be paid
pro-rata. The Debtors structured the Plan and Silica TDPs to eliminate the rights
of creditors (and insurers) to object to the payment of claims that would not
otherwise be allowed under bankruptcy law due to the claims being unenforceable
under applicable non-bankruptcy law.
IX ARGUMENT
THE COURTS BELOW ERRED IN CONFIRMING A PLAN THAT
PAYS OFF CLAIMS THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER
APPLICABLE BANKRUPTCY LAW TO GARNER FAVORABLE
VOTING BY THE ASBESTOS CLAIMANTS
In confirming the Plan and approving the Silica Trust, the Bankruptcy Court
relied on Sections 105 and 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. 105, 1129.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
13/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -8-
However, nothing in Section 105 authorizes a court to override the
command of 11 U.S.C. 502(b)(1) -- that claims are to be allowed or disallowed
pursuant to the principles of applicable nonbankruptcy law.
This Court has time and time again held that Section 105 does not provide
authority for a bankruptcy court to expand rights afforded to parties by the
Bankruptcy Code. See, In re Continental Airlines, Inc., 203 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir.
2000). Nor may a bankruptcy court disregard provisions of the Code. In re
Combustion Engineering, Inc., supra 391 F.3d at 235-6, citing, inter alia, Norwest
Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 206, 99 L. Ed. 2d 169, 108 S. Ct. 963
(1988) ("Whatever equitable powers remain in the bankruptcy courts must and can
only be exercised within the confines of the Bankruptcy Code."). Section 1129 of
the Bankruptcy Code itself conditions confirmation of a plan on both the plan and
the plan proponent complying with applicable provisions of Title 11. 11 U.S.C.
1129(a)(1), (2). It further requires the plan to be proposed in good faith and not by
means forbidden by law. 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(3). This Circuit has stated that "for
purposes of determining good faith under section 1129(a)(3) . . . the important
point of inquiry is the plan itself and whether such a plan will fairly achieve a
result consistent with the objectives and purposes of the Bankruptcy Code." In re
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
14/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -9-
PWS Holding Corp., 228 F.3d 224, 242 (3d Cir. 2000), citingIn re Abbotts Dairies
of Pa., Inc., 788 F.2d 143, 150 n.5 (3d Cir. 1986).
Just as attempts to manufacture artificially, or to gerrymander, classes to
obtain an accepting impaired non-insider class4 raise questions of good faith, so
does the inclusion in the silica trust of persons with claims that would not be
allowed under the Bankruptcy Code, and the divestiture of the mechanism for
creditors to challenge such claims under Section 502(b).
Further, the Bankruptcy Code set up a system with provisions that govern
how claims are handled in order to effectuate the Code's goal of ensuring a fair and
equal distribution to creditors. Thus a plan can be confirmed if it "complies with
the applicable provisions of this title." 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(1). Failing to comply
with the provisions of the Code as a device to get votes for a plan is simply not
permissible. And in a case involving competing claims to a limited fund, a
claimant with an allowed claim has standing to appeal an order disposing of assets
(i.e., allowing a claim of another claimant) from which the claimants seeks to be
paid. See, e.g.,In re International Environmental Dynamics, Inc., 718 F.2d 322,
326 (9th Cir. Cal. 1983).
4In order to confirm a Plan, Section 1129 requires that the plan be accepted by at
least one class of impaired creditors. 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(10).
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
15/146
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
16/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -11-
As this Court has stated:
'[t]o determine whether claims are enforceable for bankruptcy purposes,
502 relies upon applicable non-bankruptcy law. See 4 Collier on BankruptcyP 502.03[2][b][ii] (15th rev. ed. 2003) ('The validity and legality of claims is
generally determined by applicable non-bankruptcy law."). A claim against
the bankruptcy estate, therefore, "will not be allowed in a bankruptcy
proceeding if the same claim would not be enforceable against the debtor
outside of bankruptcy." (citations omitted).
In re Combustion Engineering, Inc., 391 F.3d 190, 245 (3d Cir. 2004)
State law ordinarily determines what claims of creditors are valid and
subsisting obligations. As articulated recently by the United States Supreme Court:
The basic federal rule' in bankruptcy is that state law governs the substance
of claims, Congress having 'generally left the determination of property
rights in the assets of a bankrupt's estate to state law.'" (Citations Omitted)
Accordingly, when the Bankruptcy Code uses the word "claim"--which the
Code itself defines as a "right to payment," 11 U.S.C. 101(5)(A) --it is
usually referring to a right to payment recognized under state law. As we
stated in Butner, "[p]roperty interests are created and defined by state law,"and "[u]nless some federal interest requires a different result, there is no
reason why such interests should be analyzed differently simply because an
interested party is involved in a bankruptcy proceeding." 440 U.S., at 55, 99
S. Ct. 914, 59 L. Ed. 2d 136;
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of America v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443, ,
127 S.Ct. 1199, 1205, 167 L.Ed.2d 178, 186-7 (2007).
From there, the bankruptcy court is to determine how and what claims are
allowable for bankruptcy purposes, in order to accomplish the statutory purpose of
advancing a fair and ratable distribution of assets among the creditors. Addison v.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 16 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
17/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -12-
Langston ( In re Brints Cotton Marketing, Inc.), 737 F.2d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir.
1984), citing Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green, 329 U.S. 156,
161, 162-63, 67 S. Ct. 237, 239, 240, 91 L. Ed. 162 (1946). See also,In re
American Reserve Corp., 840 F.2d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 1988) (the courts shall look
to substantive nonbankruptcy law to determine the validity and amount of a claim
when the petition was filed). Ultimately, the effect of Section 502 is to provide a
bankruptcy trustee with the same rights and defenses to claims as held by the
debtor prior to bankruptcy. In re Combustion Eng'g, Inc., supra, 391 F.3d at 245
(3d Cir. Del. 2004). Moreover, Section 502 "is most naturally understood to
provide that, with limited exceptions, any defense to a claim that is available
outside of the bankruptcy context is also available in bankruptcy." Travelers Cas.
& Sur. Co. of America v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., supra, 549 U.S. , 127 S.Ct. at
1204, 167 L.Ed.2d at 182 (2007). "When the Bankruptcy Code uses the word
'claim' -- which the Code itself defines as a 'right to payment,' -- it is usually
referring to a right to payment under state law."Id. 594 U.S. , 127 S.Ct. at 1205,
167 L.Ed.2d at 182. Indeed, Section 558 of the Bankruptcy Code expressly
provides the bankruptcy estate with the benefit of any defense available to the
debtor as against any entity other than the estate. 11 U.S.C. 558. Thus, a claim
that would be subject to the statute of limitations, which is a waivable defense
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 17 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
18/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -13-
under the laws of many jurisdictions, would nonetheless be disallowed. It cannot
be disputed that where a claim would be unenforceable against the debtor outside
of bankruptcy because the statute of limitation had run, the claim will not be
allowed in a bankruptcy case. See, In re Brill, 318 B.R. 49, 53 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2004) (Section 502(b)(1) requires a claim to be disallowed if such claim is
unenforceable against the debtor"), citing, inter alia, U.S. Lines, Inc. v. U.S. Lines
Reorganization Trust (In re U.S. Lines, Inc.), 262 B.R. 223, 234 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
If the Post-2000 Silica Claims were submitted to the tort system, those
claimants would be subject to defenses to liability that could either reduce or
completely bar their claims. By shielding these claimants from valid liability
defenses, Post-2000 Silica Claims claimants will recover larger allowed amounts
by virtue of the GIT Plan than they would outside of bankruptcy in the tort system
(i.e., the otherwise applicable law to which Section 502 makes reference). This is
clearly contrary to the statutory scheme which provides for the allowance and
payment of a claim except to the extent that the claim is unenforceable against the
debtor under any agreement or applicable law. A plan that condones superior,
rather than equitable, treatment defies a principal purpose of the bankruptcy code
and should not have been confirmed.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 18 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
19/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -14-
But for the GIT Plan and the Silica TDP, many, if not all, of the Post-2000
Silica Claimants claims would not otherwise be paid in the tort system or even be
allowed under the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court was mistaken when it
concluded that the Post-2000 Silica Claimants would be subject to defenses
available to Debtors. JA 73 (Memorandum Opinion of Confirmation of Third
Amended Plan of Reorganization, page 46). To the contrary, the GIT Plan and
TDPs are structured so that Post-2000 Silica Claims will be allowed and, thus paid,
simply upon a showing of exposure and injury --regardless of the existence of a
defense (such as refusal to wear an employer provided mask). JA2943. The
Futures Representative for Silica Claimants, Robert Pahigian, in his affidavit
averred that the Plan and Silica TDPs will be able to pay present claims and future
demands in a substantially similar manner.
5
JA2796, 2842. But, under
5 In his March 8, 2007 deposition, Mr. Pahigian acknowledged the potential
for greater recovery by silica claimants whose claims are administered by the trust.
(Bankruptcy Doc 7260, District Court Doc No. 13-2, Transcript, pp. 56-57):
Q: So when we talk about the claimants that are going to be treated --
channeled to the trust, this new group of claimants, and you said that you believe
that they would be treated more fairly than they would have in the tort system, do
you believe that they will also receive a greater recovery?
A: Than?Q: Than they would have had they not had their claims channeled to the
trust?
A: Yes. Thats my general belief. But as I said before, I cant tell you what
the tort system is going to provide to these claimants on any given day in the
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 19 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
20/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -15-
Pennsylvania law, the post-2000 Silica Claims would clearly be subject to
legitimate defenses that can limit or eliminate the claimants ability to recover.
See. Phillips v. A-Best Products Co., 542 Pa. 124, 665 A.2d 1176 (1995).6
The GIT Plan elevates the recovery by the Post-2000 Silica Claims
claimants and provides a windfall that would not otherwise exist, by requiring
without defense the allowance and payment of defensible claims. The GIT Plan
does so at the expense of the insurers generally and with respect to the AIG
Member Companies specifically as a Silica Trust Creditor whose claims are diluted
by payment of legally defensible claims which should be disallowed under the
Bankruptcy Code. The GIT plan and the Trust eviscerate the mechanism that
future. Youre talking about individuals who are going to develop disease a decade
or many decades down the road. The tort system may change during that period,
likely will. So I cant tell you how each I cant even begin to speculate how eachclaimant is going to be treated. I think as a whole, the concept of setting a
significant amount of money aside and significant potential insurance recoveries
aside for the group as a whole and distributing that money after analyses are done
about the number of future claimants expected assures all of them relatively equal
treatment andI think a more fair and equitable distribution of proceeds than would
occur under the tort system
6AIG Member Companies join in the Hartford and Century Appellant Brief which
includes a compelling showing that many silica claims, whether pre-2000 or post-
2000, are invalid and dilute the AIG Member Companies recovery as creditors ofthe Silica Trust. AIG Member Companies argue further that the failure to retain
any requirement to show actual tort liability for Post-2000 Claims is a further
impermissible dilution. Indeed, the Phillips v. A-Bestcase explicitly held that
silica claims against these Debtors were subject to such defenses.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 20 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
21/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -16-
enables creditors with legitimate claims to object to claims that are not valid. A
plan that allows legally worthless claims to receive a recovery, with no provision
for disallowance in the face of a valid defense, at the expense of other claims, is
not equitable, is inconsistent with the principals and provisions of the Bankruptcy
Code and should not have been confirmed. The Bankruptcy Court erred in
entering the Order of Confirmation.
X CONCLUSION
The Bankruptcy Court and District Courts erred in confirming the GIT
Plan. The Plan inappropriately provides for the payment of invalid claims from the
Silica Trust to the detriment of valid claims with no mechanism for disallowance.
For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in the Hartford Brief, the
Orders of the District Court and the Bankruptcy Court confirming the GIT Plan
and authorizing the APG Silica Trust and TDPs should be reversed.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 21 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
22/146
Dated: November 19,2008 The AIG Member Companies, includingNational Union Fire Insurance Company ofPittsburgh, PA, Insurance Company of theState of Pennsylvania, Lexington InsuranceCompany and American Home AssuranceCompanyB m ttorneys:
~ e v e w e i s s anne (Pa. 34545)TUCKER ARENSBERG, P.C.1500 One PPG PlacePittsburgh, PA 15222Phone: 412-566-1212Telecopier: 4 12-594-5619Email : bmanne@,tuckerlaw.comMichael S. Davis, Esq.ZEICHNER ELLMAN & KRAUSE LLP575 Lexington AvenueNew York, New York 10022Phone: 212-223-0400Joseph Boury, Esq.BIVONA & COHEN, P.C.88 Pine StreetNew York, New York 10005Phone: (2 12) 363-3 100
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 22 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
23/146
-18-
COMBINED CERTIFICATIONS
Beverly Weiss Manne certifies as follows:
1. Beverly Weiss Manne, Michael Davis and Joseph Boury are members in
good standing of the bar of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.
2. This brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P
32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 3090 words, excluding the parts of
the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
3. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) becausethis brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using
Microsoft Word 2003 in Times New Roman 14-point font.
4. The text of the electronic version of this brief is identical to the text of the
paper copies of this brief being filed with the Court except that the
attachments contained in Volume I of the Appendix are not included in the
electronic version.
5. A virus detection program on Kaspersky Anti-Virus software was run on thefile for the electronic version of the brief and no virus was detected.
6. On this 19th
day of November, 2008, a copy of the electronic version of the
brief was transmitted to the Office of the Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, ten hard copies of the brief were mailed to the Office of the Clerk
for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Volume I of the Appendix is not included because it is attached to the
Appellate Brief of Hartford and Century Indemnity, in which Brief AIG
Member Companies have joined. Volumes I-V of the Appendix are beingserved by Hartford and Century Indemnity.
Two copies of this Brief were served upon the following counsel of record
by first class/priority mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 23 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
24/146
BANK_FIN:316991-2 021087-134919 -19-
James J. Restivo, Jr., Esq.
Paul M. Singer, Esq.
David Ziegler, Esq.
Reed Smith435 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-0000
Edwin J. Harron, Esq.
Sharon M. Zieg, Esq.
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor
1000 West Street, P.O. Box 391
17th Floor, Brandywine Building
Wilmington, DE 19899-0391
Joel M. Helmrich, Esq.
Meyer, Unkovic & Scott
535 Smithfield Street
1300 Oliver Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-0000
Gary P. Nelson, Esq.
Sherrard, German & Kelly620 Liberty Avenue
Two PNC Plaza, 28th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-0000
Douglas A. Campbell, Esq.
David B. Salzman, Esq.
Campbell & Levine
330 Grant Street
1700 Grant BuildingPittsburgh, PA 15219-0000
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 24 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
25/146
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq.Caplin & Drysdale375 Park Avenue, 35th FloorNew York, NY 10 152-0000Peter V. Lockwood, Esq.Caplin & DrysdaleOne Thomas Circle, N.W.Washington, DC 20005-0000
Sally E. Edison, Esq.McGuireWoods625 Liberty A venue23rd Floor, Dominion TowerPittsburgh, PA 15222-0000Craig Goldblatt, Esq.Danielle M. Spinelli, Esq.Seth P. Waxman, Esq.Wilmer Hale1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006John D. Dernrny, Esq.Stevens& Lee1105 North Market Street, Suite 700Wilmington, DE 19801-0000
Dated: November 19,2008
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312240403 Page: 25 Date Filed: 11/19/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
26/146
No. 08-3650
In the United States Court of Appealsfor the Third Circuit
IN RE: GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL.,Appellants,
v.
GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES,INC., ET AL.,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS HARTFORD AND CENTURY
WILLIAM J.BOWMANJAMES P.RUGGERIEDWARD B.PARKS,IIHOGAN &HARTSON LLP555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.Columbia SquareWashington, D.C. 20004(202) 637-5600
SETH P.WAXMANCRAIG GOLDBLATTDANIELLE SPINELLINANCY L.MANZERCATHERINE M.A.CARROLLLISA EWARTWILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006(202) 663-6000
Counsel for Appellants Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company,
First State Insurance Company, and Twin City Fire Insurance Company
Additional Parties and Counsel Listed on Inside Cover
08
12/
Marcia M. Wal
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
27/146
JOHN D.DEMMYSTEVENS &LEE, P.C.1105North Market Street, 7th FloorWilmington, DE 19801(302) 425-3308
LEONARD P.GOLDBERGERSTEVENS &LEE, P.C.1818 Market Street, 29th FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19103(215) 751-2864
JOSEPH GIBBONSAMY E.VULPIO
WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP1800 One Liberty PlacePhiladelphia, PA 19103(215) 864-7000
Counsel for Century Indemnity Company, as
successor to CIGNA Specialty Company,
formerly known as California Union
Insurance Company, and Westchester Fire
Insurance Company, for itself and for
International Insurance Company (nowknown as TIG Insurance Company)
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
28/146
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and Third Circuit LAR 26.1, AppellantsHartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First State Insurance Company, and
Twin City Fire Insurance Company hereby make the following disclosure:
A. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. Hartford FireInsurance Company and The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. are parentcorporations. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (publicly held) holds100% of the stock of Hartford Fire Insurance Company (a non-party), which holds100% of the stock of Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company.
B. First State Insurance Company. Heritage Holdings, Inc. and TheHartford Financial Services Group, Inc. are parent corporations. The Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc. (publicly held) holds 100% of the stock of HeritageHoldings, Inc. (a non-party), which holds 100% of the stock of First StateInsurance Company.
C. Twin City Fire Insurance Company. Hartford Fire InsuranceCompany and The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. are parent corporations.The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (publicly held) holds 100% of thestock of Hartford Fire Insurance Company (a non-party), which holds 100% of thestock of Twin City Fire Insurance Company.
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., a publicly held corporation thatis not a party to this appeal, has a financial interest in the outcome of this appealbecause it is the ultimate parent of the Appellants listed above.
Dated: November 19, 2008 /s/ Danielle SpinelliDanielle SpinelliWILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006(202) 663-6000
Counsel for Appellants Hartford Accident
and Indemnity Company, First State
Insurance Company, and Twin City Fire
Insurance Company
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
29/146
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE THIRD CIRCUITHART FOR D ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COM PANY , ET AL., Appellants,
GLO BAL INDU STRIAL TECHNOLO GIES, INC., ET AL., Appellees.CORPORA TE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ANDSTATEMENT O F FINANCIAL INTEREST
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and T hird Circuit LAR 26.1, Appellants (i) CenturyIndem nity Com pany, as successor to CIGNA Specialty Comp any, formerly known as CaliforniaUnion Insurance C on ~p an y, nd (ii) Westchester Fire Insurance Compan y, for itself and forInternational Insurance Com pany (now known as TIG Insurance Compan y) (by operation ofnovation all rights and obligations under the policies have been transferred from InternationalInsurance Compan y to Westchester Fire lnsurance Com pany), hereby mak e the followingdisclosures:
Century Indemnity Company. Century Indemnity Company is a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Brandyw ine Holdings C orporation, which is not a publicly traded comp any, and itsultimate parent corporation is AC E Lim ited, which is a publicly traded con lpany having afinancial interest in this appeal.Westchester Fire Insurance Com pany. Westchester Fire Insurance Company is awholly ow ned subsidiary of AC E US H oldings, Inc., which is not a publicly traded compan y,
and its ultimate parent co rporation is ACE Lim ited, which is a publicly traded comp any having afinancial interest in this appeal.
Dated: September 25 ,20 08
1 105 N. Market S treet, 7th FloorWilmington, DE 1980 1Telephone: (302) 425-330 8Counsel for Centu ry Indemnity C ompany, assuccessor to CIG NA Specialty C omp any, formerlyknown as California Union Insurance Com pany,and W estchester Fire Insurtrnce Com pan y, or itselfand for Internutzonul Insurance C om pan y (nowknown us TIG Insz~ranceCompu ny) (bv operation o fnovalion all rights uncl obligalion~ mu'er /hepolicies have been iran .sfirredJron~ nlernnlionalIns~lranceComptmny t o Westchester Fire In.szrranceCompan,v)
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
30/146
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................................................1
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ..........................................................................3
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...............................................................................4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .....................................................................7
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................7
A. Debtors History And The Asbestos And Silica Claims.......................7
B. Debtors Bankruptcy Filings And Plan .................................................8
C. Plan Confirmation Proceedings...........................................................14
STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................15
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...............................................................................16
ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................19
I. THE SECTION 105(a) INJUNCTION AGAINST SILICACLAIMS IS UNLAWFUL............................................................................19
II. THE BANKRUPTCY CODE DOES NOT PREEMPT ANTI-
ASSIGNMENT PROVISIONS IN THE INSURERS POLICIES ..............28
A. The Text, Structure, History, And Context Of 1123(a)Make Clear That The Statute Does Not Preempt Anti-AssignmentProvisions In Insurance Policies .........................................................30
1. Section 1123(a)s Text And Structure ......................................32
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
31/146
ii
2. Pre-Code Practice And Legislative History..............................35
3. The Broader Statutory Scheme.................................................42
4. The Absurd Consequences Of DebtorsInterpretation.............................................................................47
B. While This Court Has Not Addressed 1123(a)s PreemptiveScope, Decisions From This Court And Other Courts Of AppealsSupport The Narrower Construction...................................................49
III. HARTFORD AND CENTURY HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT TO
DEBTORS PLAN AND TO APPEAL THE ORDER CONFIRMINGTHE PLAN ....................................................................................................55
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................59
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
32/146
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) .....................................35
BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (1994)..............................................31
Brockett v. Winkle Terra Cotta Co., 81 F.2d 949 (8th Cir. 1936)...........................37
Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979)............................................................30
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) ..................................................55
Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213 (1998)..................................................35, 39, 41
Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 432 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2005).....................16
Colacicco v. Apotex Inc., 521 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2008) ...........................................15
Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992)............................................................35, 41
Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (2004) ..........................................................................44
In re A.H. Robins Co., 880 F.2d 694 (4th Cir. 1989) ..............................................23
In re Amatex Corp., 755 F.2d 1034 (3d Cir. 1985) .................................................58
In re Combustion Engineering, Inc., 391 F.3d 190(3d Cir. 2004).........................................................................................passim
In re Congoleum Corp., 426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005) .........................................9, 58
In re Congoleum Corp., No. 03-51524, 2008 WL 4186899(Bankr. D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2008) ........................................................................54
In re Continental Airlines, 203 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2000) .................15, 16, 23, 24, 27
In re Dow Corning Corp., 280 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 2002) ........................................23
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
33/146
iv
In re FCX, Inc., 853 F.2d 1149 (4th Cir. 1988) .......................................................54
In re Johns-Manville Corp., 36 B.R. 743 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984)...................21, 24
In re Johns-Manville Corp., 68 B.R. 618 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986).........................20
In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 343 B.R. 88 (D. Del. 2006).....................................54
In re M. Frenville Co., 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984)...............................................20
In re Porto Rican America Tobacco Co., 112 F.2d 655 (2d Cir. 1940) ..................37
In re Pressed Steel Car Co., 16 F. Supp. 329 (W.D. Pa. 1936) ..............................38
In re SGL Carbon Corp., 200 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 1999) ...........................................27
In re S.I. Acquisition, Inc., 817 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1987) ......................................22
In re Silica Products Liability Litigation, 398 F. Supp. 2d 563(S.D. Tex. 2005) ..............................................................................1, 2, 12, 13
In re UNR Industries, Inc., 725 F.2d 1111 (7th Cir. 1984) ...............................21, 24
Integrated Solutions, Inc. v. Service Support Specialties, Inc.,124 F.3d 487 (3d Cir. 1997) ..................................................................passim
Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) .............................................................43
Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36 (1986) ....................................................................35
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) ..........................55
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) ...................................................30, 41
Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, 474 U.S. 494 (1986)........................................................31, 35, 47
New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers
Insurance Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1995)..............................................................30
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
34/146
v
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. California ex rel. Cal. Dept of Toxic
Substances Control, 350 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2003)......................44, 48, 53, 54
Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 758 F.2d 936 (3d Cir. 1985).....................20
United Savings Association v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates ,484 U.S. 365 (1988).................................................................................35, 42
Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Lawton-Byrne-Bruner Insurance Agency,79 F.2d 804 (8th Cir. 1935) ...........................................................................38
Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609 (1973)................42
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) .......................46
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
11 U.S.C.105 ......................................................................................................passim365(b)...........................................................................................................46365(e) ...........................................................................................................43524(g)...................................................................................................passim525 ...............................................................................................................43
541 .........................................................................................................50, 51541(a) ...........................................................................................................52541(c) ...........................................................................................................511123(a).................................................................................................passim1141(d).........................................................................................................191142(a).......................................................................................42, 43, 44, 45
28 U.S.C.157(a).............................................................................................................3157(b).............................................................................................................3
157(c).............................................................................................................3158(a).............................................................................................................4158(d).............................................................................................................41291 ...............................................................................................................41334(a)...........................................................................................................31334(b)...........................................................................................................3
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
35/146
vi
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.90.004 ..........................................................................................................1390.006 ..........................................................................................................13
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 98-882 (1984).........................................................................40
H.R. Rep. No. 96-1195 (1980).................................................................................40
H.R. Rep. No. 103-835 (1994)...........................................................................21, 22
S. Rep. No. 98-65 (1983) .........................................................................................40
Analysis of H.R. 12889, 74th Cong., 2d Sess. (1936) .............................................38
Pub. L. No. 73-296, 48 Stat. 911 (1934)............................................................36, 38
Pub. L. No. 75-696, 52 Stat. 840 (1938)..................................................................36
Pub. L. No. 98-353, 98 Stat. 333 (1984)..................................................................40
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Collier on Bankruptcy (14th ed. 1977) ....................................................................37
Hanna, John & McLaughlin, James Angell, The Bankruptcy Act of 1898 asAmended Including the Chandler Act of 1938 (1939)...................................38
Parloff, Roger, Welcome to the New Asbestos Scandal, Fortune,Sept. 6, 2004 ..................................................................................................57
Phillips, Walter Ray & Nadler, Charles Elihu, The Law of Debtor Relief:
Bankruptcy and Non-Bankruptcy Devices (1972).........................................37
Remington, Harold,A Treatise on the Bankruptcy Law of the United States(1961).............................................................................................................37
Weinstein, Jacob I., The Bankruptcy Law of 1938 (1938).......................................38
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
36/146
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In recent years, plaintiffs lawyers have flooded the courts with dubious or
outright fraudulent claims of silica-related injury. As the district judge presiding
over the silica multidistrict litigation described such claims: [T]hese diagnoses
were driven by neither health nor justice: they were manufactured for money. In
re Silica Prods. Liab. Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563, 635 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (Jack, J.).
This case centers on a scheme to use the bankruptcy process to generate similarly
dubious or fraudulent silica-related claims, to hand Debtors insurers the bill for
those claims, and to deprive insurers of defenses to coverage arising from that very
scheme.
Debtors filed for bankruptcy to address their substantial asbestos liability.
Prior to bankruptcy, Debtors had never paid a penny on account ofsilica claims
(and their primary insurer had paid a mere $312,000 to resolve such claims).
Debtors did, however, have liability insurance policies that excluded asbestos
claims but (they believed) covered silica claims. And Debtors desperately needed
to reach agreement with the plaintiffs bar to obtain the necessary votes to approve
the plan of reorganization that would resolve their asbestos liability. Debtors
therefore agreed not only to set up a trust for asbestos claims, but also to give the
plaintiffs lawyers something extra: a trust for silica claims, funded entirely by
insurance proceeds.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
37/146
2
After thateven though Debtors had faced fewer than 200 silica claims in
the 25 years before bankruptcyapproximately 5,000 silica claims poured in.
More than half were supported by doctors whose diagnoses Judge Jack had
rejected as fraudulent. And more than half were filed by persons previously
diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, who almost certainly could not also
have had any silica-related disease. As Judge Jack explained, a golfer is more
likely to hit a hole-in-one than an occupational medicine specialist is to find a
single case of both silicosis and asbestosis, Silica Prods., 398 F. Supp. 2d at
603yet Debtors solicitation resulted in thousands of such claims.
Despite these obvious indicia of fraud, and despite their own projection that
the reorganized Debtors would be highly profitable, Debtors nonetheless
contended that they could not reorganize without an injunction under 105 of the
Bankruptcy Code channeling the silica claims to a trust. Their plan provided for
the creation of such a silica trust, to be funded solely by the proceeds of insurance
settlements and by the assignment of rights to Debtors insurance policies. The
plan also purported to bar insurers from invoking any defense to insurance
coverage arising out of Debtors violation of policy provisions restricting the
policies assignment.
Over the insurers objection, the bankruptcy court upheld both features of
the plan. It erred on both counts. As to the 105 injunction, the bankruptcy court
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
38/146
3
failed to apply the legal standard articulated by this Court for granting such
extraordinary relief, failing to require Debtors to show that the injunction was truly
necessary for their reorganization. As to the provisions of the plan purporting to
strip insurers of their bargained-for defenses to coverage, the bankruptcy court
wrongly held that the Bankruptcy Code preempts those defenses, reasoning that
1123(a) of the Code authorizes a debtor to override any non-bankruptcy law or
contract governing the transactions through which it chooses to implement its plan.
That surpassingly broad reading of 1123(a) cannot be squared with its text or with
basic bankruptcy principles and gives rise to absurd consequences.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The district court had original jurisdiction over Debtors Chapter 11 cases
under 28 U.S.C. 1334(a); the cases were referred to the bankruptcy court under 28
U.S.C. 157(a). The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over plan confirmation
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 1334(b). On September 24, 2007, the bankruptcy
court issued an order purporting to recommend the district courts confirmation
of the plan. JA2538-2550. Treating that order as a final order confirming the plan,
Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal to the district court. JA2667-2674.1 The
1 As to core matters such as plan confirmation, see 28 U.S.C.157(b)(2)(L), there is no statutory authority for the bankruptcy court to issuerecommended findings and conclusions subject to de novo review in the districtcourt. Cf. id. 157(c)(1) (establishing such a procedure for non-core matters).
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 13 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
39/146
4
parties subsequently filed a timely joint motion to alter or amend the judgment.
JA2675-2681. On November 14, 2007, the bankruptcy court issued a revised order
and memorandum opinion confirming the plan. JA28-80; JA188-200. Appellants
filed a timely amended notice of appeal. JA3045-3054. The district court had
jurisdiction of that appeal under 28 U.S.C. 158(a).
On December 18, 2007, the district court issued an order, in Misc. No. 07-
319, affirming the confirmation order. JA3055-3067. Appellants filed a timely
motion for reconsideration on the ground that they had not yet had an opportunity
to brief their appeal. After briefing, on July 26, 2008, the district court entered a
final order in No. 07-1749 vacating its earlier order and again affirming the
bankruptcy courts confirmation order. JA11-27. Appellants filed a timely notice
of appeal to this Court on August 25, 2008. JA1-10. This Court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(1) and 1291.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Did Debtors meet their burden of demonstrating that an injunction
under 11 U.S.C. 105 channeling present and future silica-related claims against
Debtors to a trust was necessary to Debtors reorganization?2
2 Raised: Bankr. Docket Nos. 5993, 5994, 5996. Ruled on: JA47-63(bankruptcy court); JA19-21 (district court).
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
40/146
5
2. Are provisions in Appellants insurance policies restricting their
assignment to third parties preempted by the Bankruptcy Code?3
3. Do Hartford and Century have standing to object to confirmation of
Debtors plan of reorganization and to appeal the order confirming the plan?4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case arises out of the Chapter 11 petition filed in 2002 by Global
Industrial Technologies, Inc. (GIT) and its subsidiaries, including A.P. Green
Industries, Inc. Appellants are insurers who issued liability insurance policies to
A.P. Green.5 Debtors plan of reorganization provides for an injunction under
105 of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining present and future silica-related claims
3 Raised: Bankr. Docket Nos. 6375, 6476, 6477. Ruled on: JA201-208(bankruptcy court); JA22-24 (district court).
4 Raised: Bankr. Docket No. 6477. Ruled on: JA201-208 (bankruptcy
court); JA16-19 (district court).5 Appellants are three groups of insurers: Hartford Accident and Indemnity
Company, First State Insurance Company, and Twin City Fire Insurance Company(collectively, Hartford); Century Indemnity Company, as successor to CIGNASpecialty Company, formerly known as California Union Insurance Company, andWestchester Fire Insurance Company, for itself and for International InsuranceCompany (now known as TIG Insurance Company) (collectively, Century); andNational Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Insurance Company ofthe State of Pennsylvania, Lexington Insurance Company, American Home
Insurance Company, and any other entities related to American InternationalGroup, Inc. that engaged in business transactions with the Reorganizing Debtors(collectively, the AIG Member Companies). This brief is filed on behalf ofHartford and Century. While the AIG Member Companies have filed a separatebrief to address an additional issue, they join fully in this brief. See Brief forAppellants AIG Member Companies (AIG Br.) at 2.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 15 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
41/146
6
against Debtors and channeling the claims to a trust. Debtors plan assigns
Debtors rights in certain insurance policies to the trust. The plan also purports to
preempt provisions in the insurance policies restricting such an assignment.
Appellants objected to Debtors plan. Debtors moved to strike Hartford and
Centurys objections, arguing that they lacked standing (while conceding that the
AIG Member Companies, who were creditors as well as insurers of Debtors, had
standing). The bankruptcy court held hearings on confirmation of Debtors plan in
June and October 2006. On September 21, 2007, the bankruptcy court issued an
order holding that (1) Hartford and Century lacked standing to object to Debtors
plan; and (2) the Bankruptcy Code preempted any anti-assignment provisions in
the insurers policies. JA201-208. On September 24, 2007, the court issued an
order confirming Debtors plan and concluding that Debtors had demonstrated that
the silica injunction was necessary to their reorganization. JA2538-2550. The
parties sought modification of the bankruptcy courts confirmation order, JA2675-
2681, and on November 14, 2007, the bankruptcy court issued a final revised order
confirming Debtors plan. JA188-200.
Appellants appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy
courts confirmation order. JA26-27. This appeal followed.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 16 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
42/146
7
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
In the bankruptcy court, GITs Chapter 11 case was jointly administered
with the Chapter 11 case of North American Refractories Company (NARCO), a
related entity. The bankruptcy court entered a final order confirming the NARCO
plan on November 14, 2007. Hartford appealed, and the district court affirmed on
July 26, 2008. That order is the subject of a separate appeal to this Court, No. 08-
3651. This appeal has been consolidated with the NARCO appeal for the purpose
of disposition.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Debtors History And The Asbestos And Silica Claims
Debtor A.P. Green Industries, Inc., a Missouri corporation founded in 1915,
manufactures and sells refractory productsconstruction materials used in high-
temperature environments. In 1998, A.P. Green was acquired by GIT, also a
Debtor here. JA816. In 1999, GIT itself was acquired by RHI AG as part of
RHIs strategy to consolidate the North American refractories business. JA810.6
Before the mid-1970s, several of the refractory products manufactured and
sold by A.P. Green allegedly contained asbestos. Certain plaintiffs sued A.P.
Green, claiming injury from exposure to those products. JA820. As of the
6 RHI AG is also the ultimate parent of NARCO, the debtor in No. 08-3651,which it acquired at around the same time.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 17 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
43/146
8
bankruptcy filing in 2002, A.P. Green had paid approximately $448 million to
resolve more than 200,000 asbestos-related claims, and an additional 235,000
asbestos-related claims were pending. JA820-821.
A.P. Greens experience with silica was another story entirely. As of the
bankruptcy filing, there was exactly one lawsuit pending against A.P. Green, in
Texas state court, consisting of claims by 169 individuals for bodily injury caused
by silica-containing products. JA106, JA1011. Including those 169 claims,
Debtors identified fewer than 200 claims asserted against A.P. Green for silica-
related injury in the 25 years before the bankruptcy. JA106. In those 25 years,
A.P. Green never paid any of its own money on account of silica claims, and its
primary insurer had paid only $312,000 to resolve such claims. JA106-107.
B. Debtors Bankruptcy Filings And Plan
In February 2002, GIT and certain of its subsidiaries, including A.P. Green,
filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. JA763-770. Debtors sought bankruptcy
protection not to address silica liability, but to address adverse business
conditions and to deal with the overwhelming number of asbestos liability
lawsuits and claims pending against them. JA117; see also JA780 (Debtors filed
for bankruptcy due to the costs of asbestos litigation, a deterioration of general
business conditions, and an inability to secure working capital financing).
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 18 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
44/146
9
In order to confirm a plan of reorganization that would resolve that
overwhelming asbestos liability, Debtors needed the approval of 75% of the
asbestos claimants, and thus needed to reach a deal with plaintiffs lawyers. See In
re Congoleum Corp., 426 F.3d 675, 680 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that [t]he realities
of securing favorable votes from thousands of claimants to meet the 75% approval
requirement forces debtors to work closely with plaintiffs lawyers). In the course
of negotiating that deal, Debtors determined that they had nearly $500 million in
potential insurance coverage that did not cover asbestos claims (generally because
of express asbestos exclusions, which became typical provisions in liability
policies in the 1980s) but that, in their view, was available to cover silica claims.
JA823. Accordingly, Debtors and asbestos plaintiffs counsel (many of whom also
represented persons asserting silica claims against other companies) agreed upon a
plan that included not just an asbestos trust and channeling injunction, but a silica
trust and channeling injunction as well. JA2891, JA2893.7 Debtors and plaintiffs
counsel also negotiated the Trust Distribution Proceduresthe terms under which
the silica trust would evaluate and pay claims. JA2968-3031. In addition, Debtors
agreed with plaintiffs counsel that the Trust Advisory Committee and the Future
7 Under the plan, silica claims against A.P. Green based on exposure prior tothe petition date will be channeled to the silica trust. JA119, JA892. Claims basedon post-petition exposure will ride through the bankruptcy and become theresponsibility of the reorganized Debtors. JA65, JA119, JA137.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 19 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
45/146
10
Claims Representativethat is, many of the persons in charge of operating the
trust and overseeing the evaluation and payment of silica claimswould be
lawyers representing the interests of alleged silica claimants. JA1332-1404.
Debtors are making no contribution of their own funds to the silica trust,
which will be funded entirely by insurance. JA2894-2895. The trust is to receive
$35.5 million in proceeds from several insurance settlements. In addition, A.P.
Green will assign to the trust its rights under its insurance policies with asbestos
exclusions, including policies issued by Appellants. JA892, JA2894-2895,
JA3037.
After agreeing with plaintiffs counsel to structure the plan to include the
silica trust, Debtors actively sought out claimants to support the plan. Having
virtually no silica claimants of their own, Debtors obtained a list of silica claimants
from another companys bankruptcy and solicited votes for their plan from counsel
for those claimants (many of whom were the same firms representing asbestos
claimants against Debtors). JA1466-1469. Ultimately, 5,125 votes were cast on
behalf of persons with alleged silica claims against Debtors. JA1412. The bulk of
these votes were submitted by a handful of law firms via master ballots. JA1417.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 20 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
46/146
11
Indeed, one law firm, the Provost Umphrey Law Firm, accounted for over half the
votes. JA1334.8
Initially, the ballots were the only evidence of the alleged silica liability
asserted in the bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court ultimately required voting
claimants to file supplemental submissions, which provided minimal information
regarding the claimants diagnosis of a silica-related disease, their exposure to A.P.
Green silica-containing products, and any prior diagnoses of, or claims for,
asbestos-related disease. JA610 (Bankr. Docket No. 6305). Debtors received a
total of 4,636 supplemental submissions. JA108. Most were submitted by
counsel, many were incomplete, and some contained no information at all other
than the claimants name and address. JA1650-1652.
At the same time that Debtors creative vote-solicitation strategy was
generating an influx of new silica claims, developments outside bankruptcy cast
serious doubt on the legitimacy of such claims. First, in 2005, the district judge
presiding over the silica multidistrict litigation, Judge Janis Jack, made disturbing
8 Nearly 10% of the voted silica claims were ultimately withdrawn aftercounsel was forced to concede they were meritless. After Hartford served asubpoena on the Law Firm of Robert Taylor requesting information about the
claims the firm had voted, the firm withdrew 489 out of the 525 silica votes it hadcast. JA1563-1565. Although Taylor had previously certified that he hadauthorization to vote the claims, that the disease categories were correct, and thatthe claimants had been exposed to A.P. Green silica products, he explained in hismotion to withdraw the votes that he no longer represented these claimants due tothe dismissal of these claimants litigation claims. JA1564.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 21 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
47/146
12
findings regarding the mass screening resulting in over 10,000 silica claims. See In
re Silica Prods. Liab. Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D. Tex. 2005). Judge Jack
noted that of the approximately 9,000 plaintiffs who submitted medical
information, all were diagnosed with silicosis by the same 12 doctors affiliated
with a handful of law firms and mobile x-ray screening companies, who
employed diagnostic methods that ranged from questionable to abysmal. Id. at
580, 622. Moreover, of the 6,757 silicosis claims submitted by one law firm, over
4,000 were from persons who had previously made claims against the Manville
Trust for asbestosiswhich meant the odds were overwhelming that one, or both,
diagnoses were fraudulent. See id. at 603. As Judge Jack put it after a careful
review of the medical evidence, a golfer is more likely to hit a hole-in-one than an
occupational medicine specialist is to find a single case of both silicosis and
asbestosis, yet the plaintiffs law firm in question parked a van in some parking
lots and found over 4,000 such cases. Id.9 The court found the doctors diagnoses
inadmissible and imposed sanctions on the lawyers over whom it determined it had
jurisdiction for bringing such claims. See id. at 637-640, 676. As Judge Jack
9 See also id. at 608 (noting that when one of the diagnosing doctors firstexamined 1,807 Plaintiffs x-rays for asbestos litigation , he found them all to beconsistent with asbestosis and not with silicosis. But upon re-examining these1,807 MDL Plaintiffs x-rays for silica litigation, [he] found evidence of silicosisin every case).
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 22 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
48/146
13
summed it up: [T]hese diagnoses were driven by neither health nor justice: they
were manufactured for money. Id. at 635.
A separate, but equally potent development driving a decline in silica-related
claims was state tort reform. Texas, for example, required asbestos and silica
plaintiffs, within 30 days of bringing suit, to provide specific medical evidence of
disease, including a detailed diagnosis by a physician. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code Ann. 90.004, 90.006 (Vernon 2005); JA2169-2170. Mississippi required
plaintiffs to meet specific venue requirements in order to bring a silica-related
lawsuit, making it much harder to sue out-of-state defendants. JA2169-2170.
Other states have also enacted legislation requiring evidence of impairment for
silica-related claims. Id.
These developments, combined with a review of the supplemental
submissions in this case, leave little doubt that most of the claims asserted by the
5,125 silica claimants who voted on the plan are invalid. Over half the claimants
who submitted supplemental forms were diagnosed by doctors whose diagnoses
were rejected as fraudulent by Judge Jack. JA2074. In addition, over half the
claimants had previously filed asbestos-related claims or been diagnosed with an
asbestos-related disease, JA2159making it extremely unlikely that they also had
a legitimate silica-related claim. In re Silica Prods. Liab. Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d at
603; see also JA1431 (Decl. of David Weill) (noting the near impossibility of a
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 23 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
49/146
14
persons contracting both an asbestos-related and a silica-related disease in a
working lifetime). Fully 82% of the claims bore at least one of these markers of
fraud. JA2159.
C. Plan Confirmation Proceedings
Unsurprisingly, the asbestos and silica claimants approved Debtors plan. In
June 2006, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on plan confirmation. In support of
the proposed silica injunction, Debtors relied primarily on the 5,125 votes cast by
alleged silica claimants. The bankruptcy court concluded that this evidence was
insufficient to support a silica injunction. Rather than simply denying
confirmation, however, the bankruptcy court adjourned the confirmation hearing to
allow submission of additional evidence regarding the silica claims and Debtors
ability to pay them. As discussed above, approximately 4,600 silica claimants filed
such supplemental submissions.
Following a continued confirmation hearing in October 2006, the
bankruptcy court confirmed the plan, concluding that the silica injunction was
necessary to Debtors reorganization. JA188-200. The court made no findings as
to the merits of the silica claims, but concluded that [w]hether or not [the] claims
prove to be compensable, Debtor[s] must address them, either in the tort system
with its inherent risks and the possibility that any one judgment could be materially
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 24 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
50/146
15
adverse and constitute a default under its financing covenants, or through a trust.
JA55.
The bankruptcy court issued a separate order addressing the insurers
standing to object to the GIT plan and the plans assignment of A.P. Greens
insurance rights to the trust. JA201-209. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy
Code preempted the insurers ability to assert the anti-assignment clauses in their
policies as a defense to coverage. JA207. In addition, the court held that Hartford
and Century lacked standing to object to confirmation of the plan (indeed, the court
found that they lacked standing to be heard even as to the assignment of rights
under their policies). JA201-209. Because Appellants AIG Member Companies
were creditors, as well as insurers, their standing was not contested. JA34.
The district court affirmed both rulings. JA11-27. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As to the bankruptcy courts judgment that Debtors were entitled to a 105
injunction against silica claims, this Court accepts the bankruptcy courts findings
of fact unless clearly erroneous, but reviews de novo whether those facts meet the
legal standard for issuance of such an injunction. In re Continental Airlines, 203
F.3d 203, 208 (3d Cir. 2000). This Court reviews the bankruptcy courts
preemption and standing rulings, which present pure questions of law, de novo.
Colacicco v. Apotex Inc., 521 F.3d 253, 261 (3d Cir. 2008) (preemption);Danvers
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 25 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
51/146
16
Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 432 F.3d 286, 291 (3d Cir. 2005) (standing). In
doing so, it affords no deference to the district court, but reviews the bankruptcy
courts judgment using the standard the district court should have employed.
Continental, 203 F.3d at 208.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
I. As this Court has made clear, a bankruptcy courts authority under
105 of the Bankruptcy Code to issue an injunction effectively discharging claims
that otherwise could not be discharged in bankruptcy is strictly circumscribed.
Such an injunction is permissible only when the bankruptcy court makes specific
factual findings demonstrating that the debtor could not reorganize without the
injunction. In granting Debtors a 105 injunction against future silica claims, the
bankruptcy court failed to apply that standard. On the undisputed facts here, there
can be no doubt that Debtors did not meet their burden of showing that they could
not reorganize without a silica injunction. Debtors had only minimal silica liability
before the bankruptcy was filed; over four-fifths of the claims asserted in response
to Debtors active solicitation during the bankruptcy bore obvious indicia of fraud;
and the reorganized Debtors financial health and profitability were never in
question.
II. The bankruptcy court likewise erred in concluding that 1123(a) of
the Bankruptcy Code preempts the anti-assignment provisions in Appellants
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 26 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
52/146
17
insurance policies. Section 1123(a) provides that, [n]otwithstanding any
otherwise applicable nonbankruptcy law, a plan shall contain eight required
elements. By its terms, that provision preempts only non-bankruptcy law that
would bar a debtor from complying with (or authorize a debtor not to comply with)
1123(a)s eight requirements. Nothing in 1123(a), however, requires a debtor to
transfer its property to a third party, and the provision simply does not affect state-
law restrictions on such transfers. As this Court stated in rejecting a similar
argument that the Bankruptcy Code preempted state-law restrictions on assignment
of property, it is a fundamental principle that the estate succeeds only to the
nature and the rights of the property interest that the debtor possessed pre-petition.
Integrated Solutions, Inc. v. Service Support Specialties, Inc., 124 F.3d 487, 495
(3d Cir. 1997). The Bankruptcy Code does not erase the anti-assignment
provisions of Debtors policies merely because Debtors would find it convenient to
assign them under their plan.
The lower courts contrary reading cannot be reconciled with 1123(a)s
text, with its history, or with the overall structure and purpose of the Bankruptcy
Code. And that reading produces the illogical and unacceptable result that a debtor
would be entitled to override all state or federal law regulating any transaction
through which it chooses to implement its planincluding applicable antitrust,
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 27 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
53/146
18
environmental, or even criminal lawseven though the Bankruptcy Code nowhere
requires that a debtor engage in such a transaction in the first place.
III. Finally, while this Court need not reach the question in light of the
AIG Member Companies conceded standing, the lower courts erred in holding
that Hartford and Century lacked standing to contest these features of Debtors
plan. As a result of Debtors bankruptcy, their creation of a trust with assets
specifically designated for silica claims, and their active solicitation, thousands of
new silica claims were asserted against Debtors in a matter of monthsclaims that
otherwise might never have been asserted at all and that bore multiple indicia of
fraud. The silica trust is funded solely by insurance settlement proceeds and rights
under insurance policies. Yet the insurers had no role in the creation of the trust
distribution procedures that will govern payment of claims and will have no ability
to defend or associate in the defense of the claims, as their policies give them the
right to do. The obvious harm to insurers from such a scheme gives them a
practical stake in the proceedings sufficient to permit them to be heard in
bankruptcy court, and increases their burdens and impairs their rights in a manner
that gives them the right to be heard on appeal.
Case: 08-3650 Document: 00312869189 Page: 28 Date Filed: 12/04/2008
-
8/14/2019 Opening Briefs and Amicus - GIT Bankruptcy Appeal
54/146
19
ARGUMENT
I. THE 105(a) INJUNCTION AGAINST SILICA CLAIMS ISUNLAWFUL
Debtors had virtually no silica liability prior to bankruptcy. Together with
the plaintiffs lawyers, they used the bankruptcy process to manufacture silica
claims that previously did not existand that, as shown above, bear patent signs of
fraud. Debtors now point to their own handiwork to argue that they must have an
injunction against silica claims or (despite the substantial profits they project) they
will be unable to reorganize at all. But the extraordinary relief of a 105 injunction
requires a showing ofreal necessity: it has never been available as a bandage for
self-inflicted wounds. On this record, it is not possible to conclude that Debtors
have met their burden of demonstrating the need for a 105 injunction.
A Chapter 11 debtor who reorganizes in bankruptcy typically obtains a
discharge of cla