Last week marked the beginning of the long awaited estimation bankruptcy proceedings Garlock Sealing Technologies. A federal bankruptcy court in Charlotte, N.C., will determine how much money the joint, valve and packaging manufacturer must set aside to pay thousands of current and future asbestos claimants. Garlock has proposed to set aside $ 270 million for claims, but the representative plaintiffs argue that the company's liability should be set around $ 1.2 billion.
With such a large discrepancy in the estimates of responsibility, it is not surprising that the trial was a dramatic start. The trial is expected to last three weeks. Meanwhile, we will examine the recent developments in the Garlock trial and the results of two recent cases of bankruptcy.
Garlock bankruptcy
Garlock filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2010 after decades of defense against asbestos trial. Its bankruptcy filing is an attempt to limit other liabilities. But the company strongly denies responsibility for injuries from asbestos and openly accused the plaintiffs to target liquidity after other accused asbestos bankruptcy. The Wall Street Journal reports that documents filed before trial Garlock promised that the process will be "a search for truth." Meanwhile, the asbestos claimants labeled arguments Garlock "artistic fiction."
And to date, the dollar is not the only thing in dispute at trial. Garlock and asbestos claimants have butted heads on the protection of information on the claim of confidential confidence. judge George Hodges, presiding at the trial, has already rejected the Garlock requests to remove confidentiality for certain information to trust and open testimony from experts relationship with the public. at the beginning of the trial, Hodges judge issued an order limiting public access to the courtroom and transcripts when arguments or testimony involving confidential information.
Pursuant in this order, the judge has temporarily closed the courtroom Friday to at least three hours of testimony by Larry Brickman. the law professor would have testified Garlock on the provisions relating to trusts to protect confidentiality and allegations breach of trust and fraud. The Hodges judge decided to limit access to the courtroom on objections by Legal Newsline journalist covering the trial. Legal Newsline filed a motion Tuesday to keep open the trial and release all transcripts for private parties.
Quigley bankruptcy
In May, a federal bankruptcy judge in Manhattan approved a bankruptcy reorganization plan that sets aside $ 946 million to resolve claims of asbestos Quigley Co. . the decision of judge Stuart Bernstein came after nine years of bankruptcy proceedings.
Quigley, who was acquired by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer in 1968, made Insulag and other insulation products that contain asbestos. The company has amassed billions of dollars in liabilities for asbestos before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 04. At the time, he had been sued by more than 0,000 applicants. In a 2010 essay on its previous reorganization plan, one expert estimated Quigley and Pfizer would face another $ 2.6 billion in claims over the next four decades. But this plan proposes a trust contribution of $ 216 million and was rejected by the court.
This failure is noteworthy because earlier Quigley and Pfizer won a historic decision to limit the ability of insurers to oppose a bankruptcy plan. This helped to fund the plan with hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance premiums, in addition to Pfizer's contributions. Pfizer also paid $ 1.25 billion to asbestos claimants separately from the bankruptcy process.
It is remarkable also because, in June, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the challenge to Pfizer a decision of the Second Circuit. That court decided not to protect Pfizer more asbestos lawsuit filed in courts of the State of Pennsylvania. Pfizer had argued that the bankruptcy of Quigley that he had protected the claims.
Approval of a federal district court is also required before the plan of bankruptcy becomes final.
Bondex bankruptcy
In May, a federal bankruptcy judge in Delaware define the commitments of international Bondex asbestos Inc. to $ 1.16 billion. Bondex manufactured a number of products that contained asbestos, including all common use compound. He filed for Chapter 11 protection in 2010, and the bankruptcy trial was held earlier this year.
In the estimation procedure in January, representatives of current asbestos claimants and estimated future asbestos liabilities between $ 1.1 and $ 1.25 billion. However, Bondex and its holding company, Specialty Products Holding Corp., liabilities estimated at $ 300 million to $ 575 million. They arrived at their estimate by reducing settlement payments based on past claims that:
(i) its products contained only chrysotile asbestos, which was less powerful than other types of asbestos; and
(ii) the joint compound was primarily a-it-yourself product that only users exposed to a very small dose.
But Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald rejected these arguments based on the video of a mixing dry Bondex product worker. His opinion noted that the worker could barely be seen because the product had created so much dust. She finally has the side asbestos claimants in reaching its decision.
According to Mealey of , the parent company of Bondex, RPM International, Inc., announced its intention to appeal the decision of Judge Fitzgerald, last month.
Disturbing new trend in estimating asbestos testing?
Although Quigley and Bondex case attracted media attention, they did not attract the actual participation of the media as the recent request for access to Garlock trial. The motion raises eyebrows because Legal Newsline is taking a new popular online Business and reforming tort lawyers. There are questions about whether it is really motivated by the First Amendment or an attempt to reflect the ongoing debate on transparency of confidence.
Hopefully these deposits do not become a new trend in the estimation bankruptcy proceedings. Hopefully they also add to the apparent whisper campaign to discredit the asbestos claimants and promote asbestos lawsuit claims Transparency (FACT) Act.
Meanwhile, the Hodges judge took time for the current test Garlock this week to deal with deposit Legal Newsline. He rejected the request Wednesday, noting that "none of [seven confidentiality orders] have been challenged before by any entity ??" including Legal Newsline . It remains to be seen whether this aside will win more attention during the bankruptcy proceedings.
