Download - Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
1/59
{D0195755.1 }
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE:
ACandS, Inc.Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
The Flintkote Company
Kaiser Aluminum Corp.Owens Corning
US Mineral Products Company
USG Corp.W.R. Grace & Co.
Debtors.
Case No.: 02-12687 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3639)Case No.: 00-4471 (Rel. Dkt. No. 10698)
Case No.: 03-10495 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3380)
Case No.: 04-11300 (Rel. Dkt. No. 5606)
Case No.: 02-10429 (Rel. Dkt. No. 10009)Case No.: 00-3837 (Rel. Dkt. No. 20954)
Case No.: 01-2471 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3878)
Case No.: 01-2094 (Rel. Dkt. No. 12596)Case No.: 01-1139 (Rel. Dkt. No. 26053)
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE:
Mid-Valley, Inc.
North American Refractories Co.
Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
Debtors.
Case No.: 03-35592 (Rel. Dkt. No. 2770)
Case No.:02-20198 (Rel. Dkt. No. 6944)
Case No.:00-22876 (Rel. Dkt. No. 8096)
Hearing Date: February 14, 2011 @ 8:30 a.m.
JOINDER AND OBJECTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEES OF ASBESTOSCLAIMANTS IN THE FLINTKOTE, GRACE, NARCO AND PITTSBURGH CORNING
BANKRUPTCIES TO GARLOCKS MOTION FOR ORDERS AUTHORIZING
ACCESS TO 2019 STATEMENTS AND RELATED RELIEF
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
2/59
{D0195755.1 }
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2
I. Garlock Seeks the Rule 2019 Exhibits for Improper Purposes ............................................3A. This Court May Deny Access to Documents to Prevent Them from
Being Used for Improper Purposes ..........................................................................3
B. Garlock Acknowledges Its Purposes in Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits ................4C. Garlocks Purposes for Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits are Improper ...................5
II. The Law Does Not Support Garlocks Attempt to Gather All Rule 2019Exhibits from Twelve Bankruptcies ....................................................................................7
A. There is Cause to Withhold the Rule 2019 Exhibits ................................................7B. Garlock Has Not Shown Cause to Be Provided with the Rule 2019
Exhibits ..................................................................................................................10
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................14
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
3/59
{D0195755.1 }
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
In re 50-Off Stores, Inc.,
213 B.R. 646 (Bankr. W. D. Tex. 1997) ..........................................................2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10
Baron & Budd, P.C. v. Unsecured Asbestos Claimants Comm.,
321 B.R. 147 (D.N.J. 2005) .....................................................................................................11
In re Cendant Corp.,
260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001).......................................................................................................3
In re Congoleum Corp.,
426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005)...............................................................................................11, 12
In re JMS Automotive Rebuilders, Inc.,
No. 01-05600DDP, 2002 WL 32817517 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2002) ........................................10
In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp.,327 B.R. 554 (D. Del. 2005) ..................................................................................................3, 6
Littlejohn v. BIC Corp.,851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................3
Nixon v. Warner Commcn, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589 (1978) ...........................................................................................................3, 4, 7
In re Orion Pictures Corp.,21 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 1994) ......................................................................................................3, 9
In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp.,
260 F. Appx 463 (3d Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................7, 11, 12
In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp.,
No. 04-1814 , 2005 WL 6128987(W.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2005) .....................................................7
In re Premier Intl Holdings, Inc.,423 B.R. 58 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) ........................................................................................6, 7
DOCKETED CASES
In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp.,
No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.) ...................................................................1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
4/59
{D0195755.1 }
iii
STATUTES AND RULES
11 U.S.C. 107 ................................................................................................................................2
11 U.S.C. 107(a) ...........................................................................................................................3
11 U.S.C. 107(b) .....................................................................................................................9, 10
11 U.S.C. 107(c) .......................................................................................................................8, 9
18 U.S.C. 1028(d) .........................................................................................................................9
18 U.S.C. 1029(e) .........................................................................................................................9
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019 ...........................................................................................................passim
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9018 ...................................................................................................................10
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
5/59
{D0195755.1 }
The Official Committees of Asbestos Claimants in the Flintkote, Grace, NARCO and
Pittsburgh Corning bankruptcy cases (the ACCs) hereby join in the relief requested in the
oppositions filed by the Peter Angelos et al. Law Firms (Angelos Opposition)1
and the Kazan,
McClain, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley et al. Certain Law Firm Objectors (Kazan Opposition)2
(collectively, the Law Firm Oppositions) to the Motion of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC
(Garlock) for Orders Authorizing Access to 2019 Statements Filed in This Court and For
Related Relief (the Motion),3
and likewise oppose the Motion by filing this Joinder and
Objection (the Objection). In support of the Objection, the ACCs respectfully represent as
follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Garlock, a stranger to these bankruptcy cases, is attempting to misuse Rule 2019for purposes it was never intended to serve fishing-expedition discovery premised on
unsupported allegations of widespread fraud and divorced from any connection with the
purposes of Rule 2019 or of the above-captioned cases in general. During all of the many years
of asbestos bankruptcies and related litigation, the ACCs do not believe that anyone other than
Garlock has ever sought such Rule 2019 Exhibits from other cases, much less done so with
respect to twelve such cases at once. No relevant precedent supports such an attempt, and
protecting against the disclosure of the 2019 Exhibits to Garlock is well within this Courts
discretion.
2. To the contrary, this Court already addressed Garlocks arguments when Garlockpreviously made them in Pittsburgh Corning, and Garlock provides no reason for this Court to
1 See, e.g., In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2011) [Dkt. No. 8118].
2 See, e.g., In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2011) [Dkt. No. 8121].
3 See, e.g., In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2011) [Dkt. No. 8096].
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
6/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 2 -
change its earlier analysis. That analysis made clear that the seeking of wholesale discovery of
Rule 2019 Exhibits for use in other cases was inappropriate and would not be permitted by this
Court.
3. The Garlock ACC has authorized the ACCs to inform the Court that it disputeswhether the 2019 Exhibits are within the reasonable scope of discovery in the aggregate
estimation proceeding in the Garlock bankruptcy, and will press those arguments before Judge
Hodges in the Garlock case. As Judge Hodges is best positioned to resolve that issue, and as, for
the reasons set forth herein, Garlock is not entitled to the Rule 2019 Exhibits regardless of its
purported use for them in the Garlock bankruptcy, this Court need not address it.
ARGUMENT
4. Because it is unable to defend its unprecedented demand for all Rule 2019exhibits in twelve separate cases (some of which are closed) on the merits, Garlocks Motion
almost entirely relies on the general principle that members of the public have a presumptive
right to publicly-filed documents. In so doing, Garlock ignores or misstates previous rulings
regarding Rule 2019, misstates the law under Section 107, and fails to acknowledge that it is well
within this Courts authority to quash attempts to gather such information for improper purposes.
5. When Garlock does bother to address its purported need for the voluminous andconfidential information it seeks, it does so in a way that both acknowledges its improper
attempts to use such information as discovery materials in other cases, and fails to acknowledge
that the Rule 2019 exhibits, by their very nature, could not establish what Garlock purports to be
attempting to establish.
6. Moreover, the decision to restrict access to such materials is well within thisCourts discretion. See, e.g., In re 50-Off Stores, Inc., 213 B.R. 646, 659 (Bankr. W. D. Tex.
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
7/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 3 -
1997) (following Supreme Courts guidance that bar[ring] access to judicial records is [] best
left to the sound discretion of the trial court) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
I. Garlock Seeks the Rule 2019 Exhibits for Improper Purposes
A. This Court May Deny Access to Documents to Prevent Them from Being
Used for Improper Purposes
7. As the District Court noted while addressing the confidentiality of Rule 2019submissions in In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 327 B.R. 554, 560 (D. Del. 2005), [a]lthough
Section 107(a) evidences a strong desire by Congress to preserve the publics right to access
judicial records, that right is not absolute. To the contrary, [c]ourts have supervisory power
over their records and files and may deny access to those records and files to prevent them from
being used for an improper purpose. Id. The Supreme Court itself has recognized that [e]very
court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where
court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes. Nixon v. Warner Commcn,
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
8. Indeed, Garlocks own cited cases recognize that [i]n limited circumstances,courts must deny access to judicial documents-generally where open inspection may be used as a
vehicle for improper purposes. In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1994)
(citations omitted); see also In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (access has
been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes) (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598); Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988) (same).
9. Accordingly, where a Court determines that otherwise public records are soughtfor an improper purpose, it will protect such records from disclosure. See, e.g., 50-Off, 213 B.R.
at 659-60 (refusing to unseal a retention hearing where, among other things, the record in this
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
8/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 4 -
matter seems at least to suggest an improper purpose as that term was used by the Supreme
Court in theNixon case).
B. Garlock Acknowledges Its Purposes in Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits
10. Garlock makes clear that it seeks the Rule 2019 Exhibits to support far-fetchedclaims of fraud in other cases. For example, Garlock now claims it requires the 2019 statements
and exhibits for use in its own bankruptcy case, allegedly because [b]y comparing these
verified statements to discovery Garlock received over the past decade, Garlock can prove the
extent to which plaintiffs firms were concealing evidence of alternative exposures in order to
inflate Garlocks settlement values. Motion at 11. Garlock also baldly asserts that it seeks the
2019 Statements because Garlock is investigating the possibility of damages actions against
plaintiffs firms or claimants to recoup settlements obtained through the concealment of exposure
evidence. Motion at 11.
11. Indeed, the only other potential purpose identified by Garlock is even moreinappropriate. Garlock claims that [b]y comparing these 2019 exhibits verifying known
exposures to the debtors products, to the discovery Garlock was simultaneously receiving in the
tort system, Garlock can determine whether lawyers and claimants were lying in one (or both)
forums. Motion at 8. Putting aside the issue of whether the exhibits could in fact serve that
purpose (they could not) or whether Garlock has a sufficient evidentiary basis to engage in such
an exercise (it does not), Garlock possesses no roving commission to uncover alleged
misstatements in various bankruptcies in which it was not a party and many of which are now
closed. It certainly cites no authority for such a ridiculous proposition, and such a purpose
likewise would be illegitimate.
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
9/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 5 -
C. Garlocks Purposes for Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits are Improper
12. This Court has already made clear that attempts to seek Rule 2019 Statements foruse in other cases violate the purpose of the Rule, and are inappropriate. [T]he purpose for
filing the 2019 statements is essentially to make sure that the Court understands that the parties
who that the attorneys who purport to represent particular parties actually do represent those
parties and therefore have the right to participate in the significant events in the case. They are
not there for the purpose of allowing another party to use them in some litigation context outside
the confines of this case. Hearing Transcript at 40, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-
22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2010) (emphasis added) (excerpts attached as Ex. A). As noted
above, in the current Motion Garlock acknowledges that its primary purpose for seeking the Rule
2019 Exhibits is to attempt to use them in other cases.
13. Similarly, if Garlock had a basis for believing such misstatements existed as tocertain claimants or counsel in tort cases, it could seek discovery (to the extent permitted) from
the makers of such misstatements in the relevant state court fora. As this Court has noted, If
theyve taken an inconsistent position in the tort system, go complain to the state court judge
about the fact that theyve taken an inconsistent position. Id. at 43.
14. In fact, the Court specifically noted the inappropriateness of the mass discoveryaspect of Garlocks request for the 2019 Statements, stating that giving you mass discovery as
to everybody who every law firm represents I think has no basis in law or in fact. Id. at 44-45.
As the Court noted, [t]hat is wholesale fishing. Id. at 51. As the Court also noted, [y]ou need
it in connection with a specific case. You have to be able to make an allegation that tort plaintiff
A has essentially lied and when you make that allegation under oath or as a certification in a
specific case, I will be happy to consider whatever disclosure is appropriate to attempt to prove
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
10/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 6 -
that its either true or not true. Id. Garlock has not complied with this Courts prior Rule 2019
ruling, a ruling from which it did not appeal.
15. Not only is Garlock not bringing its request in connection with a specific tortplaintiff, but it is now doing so with respect to twelve bankruptcy cases, including in Pittsburgh
Corning where its request was previously denied. Its attempt to misuse Rule 2019 as a discovery
fishing expedition should once again be rejected.
16. When a statement under Rule 2019 is required, the Rule itself instructs that thestatement should contain:
(1) the name and address of the creditor or equity security holder; (2) thenature and amount of the claim or interest and the time of acquisition
thereof unless it is alleged to have been acquired more than one year priorto the filing of the petition; (3) a recital of the pertinent facts and
circumstances in connection with the employment of the entity * * *; and
(4) with reference to the time of the employment of the entity, theorganization or formation of the committee, * * * the amounts of claims or
interests owned by the entity, * * * the times when acquired, the amounts
paid therefor, and any sales or other disposition thereof. * * * Thestatement shall include a copy of the instrument, if any, whereby the entity
is empowered to act on behalf of creditors or equity security holders.
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019. The purpose of Rule 2019 is to ensure that plans of reorganization are
negotiated and voted upon by people who are authorized to act on behalf of the real parties in
interest. Kaiser, 327 B.R. at 559 (citing 9 Lawrence P. King, et al., Collier on Bankruptcy
2019.05[2] (15th ed. 2004)).
17. As is apparent from its text and purpose, Rule 2019 is not meant as a weapon fordebtors to use in inflicting costs and burdens on creditors, nor as a one-sided discovery device.
Accordingly, a Motion and proposed order that invoke the Rule for such improper purposes
should be summarily rejected. See In re Premier Intl Holdings, Inc., 423 B.R. 58, 75 (Bankr. D.
Del. 2010) (denying a motion to compel performance of Rule 2019 obligations and stating the
Official Committee, by filing its motion, is clearly engaged in a litigation tactic to apply pressure
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
11/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 7 -
on it[s] current adversary, the Informal Committee of SFO Noteholders, as well as attempting to
make an end run around a previous ruling denying the Official Committees request for
discovery seeking virtually the same information); 50-Off, 213 B.R. at 659-60 ([u]nder the
facts of this particular case, this Court believes that a litigants seeking to obtain information
from a retention hearing involving the litigants opposing counsel is an improper purpose
within the meaning of that term as used inNixon, so that access should be denied).
18. Garlocks Motion seeks information for use in other cases as an end run aroundproperly-limited discovery. As supported by the above precedent,and consistently with its prior
rulings in Pittsburgh Corning, this Court should therefore deny Garlocks Motion.
II. The Law Does Not Support Garlocks Attempt to Gather All Rule 2019 Exhibits
from Twelve Bankruptcies
19. Even if Garlocks purposes for gathering the Rule 2019 Exhibits were notimproper, it still would not be entitled to the Rule 2019 Exhibits, because those Exhibits contain
confidential information and are deserving of protection. As the District Court ruled in
Pittsburgh Corning, in response to a request for the Rule 2019 Exhibits this Court is free to hold
that countervailing concerns justify the continued protection of the information, a ruling that
was affirmed by the Third Circuit. In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 04-1814, 2005 WL
6128987, at *10 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2005), affd, 260 F. Appx 463 (3d. Cir. 2008).
20. Moreover, Garlock has not shown any entitlement to the Rule 2019 Exhibits as aparty or for any other reason.
A. There is Cause to Withhold the Rule 2019 Exhibits
21. As demonstrated in Part I, above, the purpose of Rule 2019 is to inform the Courtwho represents whom. That purpose is not furthered by the production of the Rule 2019 Exhibits
to Garlock, but would be hindered by it. If tort victims thought that the submission of Rule 2019
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
12/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 8 -
Statements could lead to the ultimate production of their confidential medical disease types,
names, addresses, and in some cases, social security numbers, into the indefinite future for the
purposes ofother cases involving unknown issues and parties, they would be less inclined to
provide such Statements voluntarily, and more likely to litigate such submissions and their
exhibits earlier and more vigorously. This would likely lead to an unwelcome proliferation of
satellite litigation that could only distract this Court and others from the purposes of both Rule
2019 specifically and Chapter 11 generally. There is no justification in Rule 2019 for such an
outcome, and it should be avoided. Cf. 50-Off Stores, 213 B.R. at 659 (stating, with reference to
the retention of professionals, [t]he statute and its implementing rules require disclosures of a
sort that would make any adversarys mouth water. Due administration of a bankruptcy estate
requires that a court be able to inquire into these important issues without, in the process,
jeopardizing the value of the very litigation sought to be pursued).
22. Also, the fact that an individual has been diagnosed with an asbestos disease ishighly personal. There is no justification to release such information to Garlock or others,
especially when such individuals or their estates may never even decide to press a claim against
Garlock or any asbestos trust that may ultimately be formed as a result of Garlocks bankruptcy
proceeding. More generally, as Garlock primarily relies on its alleged rights as a member of the
general public, its logic naturally leads to such individuals personal medical information being
made public. Again, there is no basis for such an intrusion merely because an individuals tort
counsel included them in a 2019 Exhibit, which, for example, could have been done solely as a
protective measure before their case was worked up.
23. Also, as subsequently recognized by Congress in its enactment of Section 107(c)of the Bankruptcy Code, the public disclosure of personally identifiable information can harm
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
13/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 9 -
individuals.4
Such information includes names, addresses and social security numbers.5
The
harms of disclosure are both thus sufficiently clear and specific to justify the protection of the
information, as this Court recognized when it issued the Rule 2019 Order keeping the Rule 2019
Exhibits from the public docket in the first place, and as logically supported by the subsequent
statutory codification of the protectibility of personally-identifiable information in Section
107(c).
24. The Rule 2019 Exhibits also fall with Section 107(b)s protection forconfidential research, development, or commercial information. 11 U.S.C. 107(b)(1). Those
Exhibits contain information that would be useful to competitors of the submitting law firms,
such as client identification and information, and the exemplars of their retention agreements and
the confidential terms therein. Orion, 21 F.3d at 27-28 (affirming lower courts holding that
commercial information included information that could give competitors an unfair
advantage).
25. The Rule 2019 Exhibits also contain information that could properly becharacterized as work product, such as the pre-litigation or preliminary determinations that the
listed individuals might have exposure to the debtors products, as well as confidential
commercial information, which some courts have likewise fairly held to be within Section
107(b). See 50-Off, 213 B.R. at 655-56 (Certainly, a lawyers work product is one type of
4 The bankruptcy court, for cause, may protect an individual, with respect to the following types of
information to the extent the court finds that disclosure of such information would create undue risk of identity theft
or other unlawful injury to the individual or the individuals property: (A) Any means of identification (as defined in
section 1028(d) of title 18) contained in a paper filed, or to be filed, in a case under this title or (B) Otherinformation contained in a paper described in subparagraph (A). 11 U.S.C. 107(c)(1)).
5 [T]he term means of identification means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction
with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any-- (A) name, social security number, date
of birth, official State or government issued drivers license or identification number, alien registration number,government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number; (B) unique biometric data, such as
fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; (C) unique electronic
identification number, address, or routing code; or (D) telecommunication identifying information or access device
(as defined in section 1029(e)). 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7).
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
14/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 10 -
confidential research that falls within the plain language of the statutes protection. And
certainly a clients disclosures made in confidence to its attorneys is one kind of confidential * *
* commercial information.); In re JMS Auto. Rebuilders, Inc., No. 01-05600 DDP, 2002 WL
32817517, *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2002) (affirming bankruptcy court decision where bankruptcy
court, therefore, ordered the materials sealed as confidential research and work product pursuant
to 107(b) and Rule 9018 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure). Given the deference
accorded to the bankruptcy court in deciding 107(b) exceptions, JMS, 2002 WL 32817517, at
*3,such information is fully protectable under Section 107(b) here as well.
26.
Finally, the number of the Exhibits and the information contained therein is vast
even for one case, let alone for twelve. To allow such vast quantities of information to be copied
and provided to anyone who asks for it will impose significant burdens of time and money on the
Court and on parties, and such a process would potentially have to be repeated ad infinitum as
more people could, and presumably would, come forward seeking access to the Rule 2019
Exhibits. Again, such abuse of Rule 2019 has never been contemplated or carried out, and this
Court should not set such an unwarranted precedent.
27. Countervailing considerations to public disclosure thus amply justify thecontinued protection of the Rule 2019 Exhibits, and such protection is well within this Courts
discretion.
B. Garlock Has Not Shown Cause to Be Provided with the Rule 2019 Exhibits
28. Notably, Garlock fails to cite a single case in which any entity has ever been heldentitled to Rule 2019 Exhibits filed in a bankruptcy to which they were not a party, much less in
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
15/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 11 -
multiple bankruptcies for use in yet other cases. Regardless of its attempt to suggest the contrary
through inapposite cases, Garlocks attempt here is simply without precedent.6
29. Instead, Garlock relies on the fact that, in the Congoleum bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court entered a Rule 2019 order that was affirmed and that did not provide for
keeping 2019 exhibits off the public docket. But the fact that the order there had different
provisions from the Rule 2019 orders used in the twelve above-captioned bankruptcies, which
didprovide for such protection, is of course unhelpful to Garlocks cause. So too is the fact that
the Third Circuit expressly distinguished that outcome in Congoleum from Pittsburgh Cornings
contrary holding, as set forth below.
30. In the Congoleumbankruptcy, the Third Circuit affirmed the disqualification of alaw firm for an actual conflict of interest, and it was the disqualification dispute and the resulting
evidentiary record that led to the Rule 2019 order. Because of the unique factual background
and record in that case, it is not persuasive precedent as to the proper contours or interpretation
of Rule 2019 generally. Indeed, the bankruptcy judge there described the factual basis for
ordering these disclosures as unprecedented. Baron & Budd, P.C. v. Unsecured Asbestos
Claimants Comm., 321 B.R. 147, 166 (D.N.J. 2005).
31. In the Pittsburgh Corning case, by contrast, the Third Circuit upheld this CourtsRule 2019 order that (1) authorized the filing of exemplars, as opposed to actual copies, of the
relevant empowering documents, and (2) permitted access to the Rule 2019 submissions only
upon motion and order of the court. In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 260 F. Appx 463 (3d Cir.
2008). In so doing, and in response to an argument by insurers that access to the Rule 2019
disclosures might enable them to reveal conflicts of interest on the part of asbestos plaintiffs
6 Similarly, Garlock has not demonstrated cause to reopen the closed bankruptcy cases, nor demonstrated
that it has standing to seek such relief.
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
16/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 12 -
counsel, the Third Circuit expressly distinguished its earlier decision in In re Congoleum Corp.,
426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005), because in Congoleum the facts necessary to find that an actual
conflict of interest existed had already been developed and left no room for speculation.
Pittsburgh Corning, 260 F. Appx at 466 n.6.
32. As in Pittsburgh Corning, there is no factual record in the cases before this Courtthat could support the relief Garlock has requested. To the contrary, as shown by the Third
Circuits decision in Pittsburgh Corning above, speculative fishing expeditions such as that
sought by Garlock here do not justify requests for Rule 2019 disclosures. Though they vaguely
argue that the Rule 2019 Order limits their rights by preventing them from obtaining
information that could reveal unethical procedures or conflicts of interests on the part of
plaintiffs lawyers (Appellants Br. 36), Appellants merely speculate that there are any unethical
procedures or conflicts of interest to reveal. They do not point us to even one actual ethical
violation or conflict of interest extant in the filings and have failed to investigate these issues so
as to support their contention. Id. at 466. Garlocks speculative and conclusory assertions
regarding alleged wide-spread fraud fail for the same reasons.
33. In its factual background section, Garlock baldy asserts that ballots it receivedin the Pittsburgh Corning case allegedly revealed widespread inconsistency with materials
submitted to Garlock in the tort system. Motion at 10. But such assertions are not evidence: to
the contrary, this Court ruled most of Garlocks proposed evidence at the Pittsburgh Corning
confirmation hearing inadmissible, Garlocks witness acknowledged that it was not offered as a
sample or anything representative, and most of the responses provided at the Pittsburgh
Corning confirmation hearing were not shown to be inconsistent, but, for example, incorporated
objections and other discovery documents that were not themselves provided. See Plan
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
17/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 13 -
Proponents and Plan Supporters Post-Trial Brief in Support of Confirmation of Modified Third
Amended Plan of Reorganization for Pittsburgh Corning Corporation at 34 n.49, In re Pittsburgh
Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2010) [Dkt. No. 7904]. As this Court
has also noted, saying 14 out of 312,000 people who filed ballots in a case either made a
mistake or somehow or another didnt report or filed a claim in the wrong place, frankly thats so
de minimis I cant consider that to be a substantial portion. Hrg Tr. 175-76, Dec. 2, 2010
(excerpts attached as Ex. B). Garlocks ipse dixit assertions provide no basis for the relief it
seeks.
34.
The Rule 2019 statements also cannot prove inconsistency with tort discovery
submissions, because, contrary to Garlocks assertions, Rule 2019 exhibits are not evidence that
the listed claimants in fact definitely can prove exposure to the products in the relevant
bankruptcy cases or will ultimately seek recovery from the subsequently-formed asbestos trusts.
As this Court has noted, the fact that somebody has listed an individual as a client on a 2019
statement is not evidence that they are going to submit a claim against the trust in the future.
Hearing Transcript at 44, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan.
13, 2010) (emphasis added).
35. Accordingly, Garlocks rationale for seeking such exhibits is on its faceinsufficient to justify its receipt of them, and certainly is insufficient to overcome the valid cause
to protect those exhibits shown above.
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
18/59
{D0195755.1 }
- 14 -
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the ACCs respectfully request that Garlocks Motion be
denied.
Dated: February 7, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
CAMPBELL & LEVINE, LLC
/s/ David B. Salzman
Philip E. Milch (PA I.D. No. 53519)David B. Salzman (PA I.D. No. 39360)
1700 Grant Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219Telephone: (412) 261-0310
Facsimile: (412) [email protected]
CAMPBELL & LEVINE, LLC
/s/ Mark T. Hurford
Marla R. Eskin (Bar No. 2989)Mark T. Hurford (Bar No. 3299)
800 N. King Street, Suite 300
Wilmington, DE 19801Telephone: (302) 426-1900
Facsimile: (302) [email protected]
CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED
Peter Van N. LockwoodTrevor W. Swett
Kevin C. Maclay
One Thomas Circle, NWSuite 1100
Washington, DC 20005Telephone: (202) 862-5000
Facsimile: (202) 429-3301
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]@capdale.com
CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED
Elihu Inselbuch375 Park Avenue, 35th Floor
New York, NY 10152-3500
Telephone: (212) 319-7125Facsimile: (212) 644-6755
E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for the Official Committees of Asbestos Claimants
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
19/59
EXHIBIT A
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
20/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
21/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
22/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
23/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
24/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
25/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
26/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
27/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
28/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
29/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
30/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
31/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
32/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
33/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
34/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
35/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
36/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
37/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
38/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
39/59
EXHIBIT B
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
40/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
41/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
42/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
43/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
44/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
45/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
46/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
47/59
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
48/59
{D0195760.1 }
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE:
ACandS, Inc.Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
Combustion Engineering, Inc.The Flintkote Company
Kaiser Aluminum Corp.
Owens Corning
US Mineral Products CompanyUSG Corp.
W.R. Grace & Co.
Debtors.
Case No.: 02-12687 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3639)Case No.: 00-4471 (Rel. Dkt. No. 10698)
Case No.: 03-10495 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3380)Case No.: 04-11300 (Rel. Dkt. No. 5606)
Case No.: 02-10429 (Rel. Dkt. No. 10009)
Case No.: 00-3837 (Rel. Dkt. No. 20954)
Case No.: 01-2471 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3878)Case No.: 01-2094 (Rel. Dkt. No. 12596)
Case No.: 01-1139 (Rel. Dkt. No. 26053)
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE:
Mid-Valley, Inc.
North American Refractories Co.Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
Debtors.
Case No.: 03-35592 (Rel. Dkt. No. 2770)
Case No.:02-20198 (Rel. Dkt. No. 6944)Case No.:00-22876 (Rel. Dkt. No. 8096)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mark T. Hurford, of Campbell & Levine, LLC, hereby certify that on February
7, 2011, I caused a copy of theJoinder and Objection of the Official Committees of Asbestos
Claimants in the Flintkote, Grace, Narco and Pittsburgh Corning Bankruptcies to Garlocks
Motion for Orders Authorizing Access to 2019 Statements and Related Reliefto be served
upon the individuals on the attached service lists via first class mail.
Dated: February 7, 2011
/s/ Mark T. HurfordMark T. Hurford (DE No. 3299)
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
49/59
195741.1 }
Adam H. Isenberg
Centre Square West
500 Market Street, 38th
FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19102
Daniel K. Hogan, Esq.
The Hogan Firm
1311 Delaware AvenueWilmington, DE 19806
Mark Minuti, Esq.
Lucian B. Murley, Esq.
Saul Ewing LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1200
P.O. Box 1266
Wilmington, DE 19899
Gregg Anderson, Esq.
Terry Bryant
West Memorial Office Park
8584 Katy Freeway, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq.
Laurie A. Krepto, Esq.
Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP
105 North Market Street, Suite 1500Wilmington, DE 19801
Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq.
Laurie A. Krepto, Esq.
Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP
123 S. Broad StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19109
Ellen C. Brotman
Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP
23 South Broad Street
Avenue of the Arts
iladelphia, PA 19109
Gregory W. Werkheiser, Esq.
Matthew B. Harvey, Esq.
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
1201 North Market Street, 18th
Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
Peter J. Ashcroft, Esq.Bernstein Law Firm, P.C.
Suite 2200 Gulf Tower
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Sander L. Esserman, Esq.David A. Klinger, Esq.
David J. Parsons, Esq.
Cliff I. Taylor, Esq.
Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka
2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2200
Dallas, TX 75201
Richard A. Swanson, Esq.
Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Esq.
Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC
The Waterfront Building
200 First Avenue, Suite 300
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Garland S. Cassada, Esquire
Richard C. Worf, Jr.
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
50/59
W.R. Grace 2002 Service ListLaura Davis Jones, Esquire
James ONeill, Esquire.
Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, & Jones LLP
919 North Market Street, 17th FloorWilmington, DE 19899-8705
William H. Sudell, Jr., EsquireEric D. Schwartz, Esquire
Morris, Nichols Arsht & Tunnell
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347Wilmington, DE 19899
Mark D. Collins, Esquire
Deborah E. Spivak, Esquire
Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.One Rodney SquareWilmington, DE 19899
Jeffrey C. Wisler, Esquire
Michelle McMahon, Esquire
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP1220 Market Street, 10th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899
Carmella Keener, Esquire
Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, P.A.
919 Market Street, Suite 1401Wilmington, DE 19899
Kathryn Sallie, EsquireBayard, P.A.
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
Wilmington, DE 19899
Joseph Grey, EsquireStevens & Lee
1105 N. Market St. Ste 700
Wilmington, DE 19801-1270
Francis A. Monaco, Jr., EsquireWomble Carlyle
222 Delaware Avenue, 15th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Mark S. Chehi, Esquire
Kevin Brady, Esquire
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
One Rodney SquareWilmington, DE 19801
Robert Jacobs, Esquire
Jacobs & Crumplar, PA
Two East 7th Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Kathleen M. Miller, Esquire
Smith, Katzenstein & Furlow LLP
The Corporate Plaza
800 Delaware Ave., 7
th
FloorWilmington, DE 19899
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Teresa K.D. CurrierSaul Ewing LLP
222 Delaware Avenue
Wilmington DE 19801
David Klauder, EsquireOffice of the United States Trustee
844 King St., 2nd FloorWilmington, DE 19801
William D. Sullivan, EsquireSullivan Hazeltine Allinson
4 East 8th Street, Suite 400Wilmington, DE 19801
Michael R. Lastowski, Esquire
Duane Morris LLP
1100 N. Market Street, Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Michael B. Joseph, Esquire
Ferry & Joseph, P.A.
824 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
Wilmington, DE 19801
J. Douglas Bacon, Esquire
David S. Heller, EsquireLatham & Watkins
Sears Tower, Suite 5800
Chicago, IL 60606
D. J. Baker, Esquire
Sheila Birnbaum, Esquire
Greg St. Clair, Esquire
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPFour Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Nancy Worth Davis, Esquire
Ness, Motley, Loadhold, Richardson & Poole
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
P.O. Box 1792Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
Securities & Exchange Commission
15th & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20020
District Director
IRS409 Silverside Road
Wilmington, DE 19809
Securities & Exchange Commission
Atlanta Regional Office Branch/Reorganization3475 Lenox Road, NE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30326-1232
Secretary of TreasurerP.O. Box 7040
Dover, DE 19903
Secretary of State
Division of Corporations
Franchise Tax
P.O. Box 7040
Dover, DE 19903
James D. Freeman, Esquire
Jerel L. Ellington, Esquire
U.S. Department of Justice
Environmental Enforcement Section
1961 Stout Street 8th Floor
Denver, CO 80294
Martin J. Bienenstock, Esquire
Judy G.Z. Liu, Esquire
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
767 Fifth AvenueNew York, NY 10153
David S. Rosenbloom, Esquire
Jeffrey E. Stone, Esquire
Lewis S. Rosenbloom, EsquireMcDermott, Will & Emery
227 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606-5096
Brad Rogers, Esquire
Office of the General CounselPension Benefit Guaranty Corp
1200 K. Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-4026
Pamela Zilly
Richard Shinder
David Blechman
Michael AlexanderThe Blackstone Group
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
51/59
Patrick L. Hughes, EsquireHaynes & Boone LLP
1 Houston Center
1221 McKinney, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77010
Elio Battista, Jr., Esquire
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801-4226
David S. Heller, Esquire
Latham & Watkins
Sears Tower, Suite 5800
Chicago, IL 60606
Stephen H. Case, Esquire
Nancy L. Lazar, Esquire
David D. Tawil, Esquire
Davis Polk & Wardwell450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Jan M. Hayden, Esquire
William H. Patrick, Esquire
Heller, Draper, Hayden, Patrick & Horn, L.L.C.
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2500New Orleans, LA 70130-6103
Joseph F. Rice, Esquire
Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
P.O. Box 1792Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
Farallon Capital Management LLC
One Maritime PlazaSuite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94111
John M. Klamann, Esquire
Klamann & Hubbard7101 College Blvd., Suite 120
Overland Park, KS 66210
Hamid R. Rafatjoo, Esquire
Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, & Jones LLP10100 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4100
Charles E. Boulbol, Esquire
26 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Matthew Grimshaw, EsquireRutan & Tucker
611 Anton Boulevard
Suite 1400
Costa Mesa, California 92626-1931
Christopher C. Colley, EsquireBaron & Budd, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Bankruptcy Administration
IOS Capital, Inc.
1738 Bass Road
P.O. Box 13708Macon, GA 31208-3708
Richard S. Cobb, Esquire
Megan N. Harper, EsquireLandis Rath & Cobb LLP
919 Market Street, Suite 600Wilmington, DE 19801
Margery N. Reed, Esquire
Duane Morris LLP
4200 One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396
Elizabeth S. Kardos, EsquireGibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger
& Vecchione, PC
One Riverfront Plaza
Newark, NJ 07102-5497
Thomas J. Noonan, Jr.
c/o R & S Liquidation Company
Five Lyons Mall PMB #530
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1928
James A. Sylvester, Esquire
Intercat, Inc.
P.O. Box 412
Sea Girt, NJ 08750
Alan R. Brayton, Esquire
Brayton & Purcell
222 Rush Landing Road
Novato, CA 94945
Jonathan W. Young, Esquire
T. Kellan Grant, Esquire
Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon
225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3000Chicago, IL 60606-1229
Steven J. Johnson, Esquire
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP1530 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
Russell W. Budd, Esquire
Baron & Budd, P.C.3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Shelby A. Jordan, Esquire
Nathaniel Peter Holzer. Esquire
Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C.500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 900
Corpus Christi, TX 78471
Charlotte Klenke, Esquire
Schneider National, Inc.
P.O. Box 2545
3101 S. Packerland
Green Bay, WI 54306
Courtney M. Labson, EsquireThe Mills Corporation
Legal Department
5425 Wisconsin Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Ira S. Greene, EsquireSquadron, Ellenoff, Plesent & Sheinfeld, LLP
551 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10176-0001
Joseph T. Kremer, Esquire
Lipsiptz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury& Cambria, LLP
42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 300Buffalo, NY 14202
Paul M. Matheny, Esquire
The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C.100 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-3804
Paul D. Henderson, Esquire
Paul D. Henderson, P.C.
712 Division AvenueOrange, TX 77630
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
52/59
Michael J. Urbis, Esquire
Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C.
500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 900
Corpus Christi, TX 78471
David B. Siegel
W.R. Grace and Co.
7500 Grace Drive
Columbia, MD 21044
Mary A. Coventry
Sealed Air Corporation
Park 80 East
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
John Donley, Esquire
Adam Paul, Esquire
Kirkland & Ellis
300 North LaSalleChicago, IL 60654
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esquire
Richard M. Heimann, Esquire
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
275 Battery Street, 30th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111
Derrick Tay, Esquire
Ogilvy Renault
Royal Bank Plaza, South Tower, Suite 3800
200 Bay Street, Box 84Toronto, Ontario M5J2Z4
CANADA
Evelyn J. Meltzer
Pepper Hamilton LLPHercules Plaza, Suite 5100
1313 Market Street
P.O. Box 1709
Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
Scott L. Baena, Esquire
Bilzin Sumberg Dunn Baena Price
& Axelrod LLPFirst Union Financial Center
200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500
Miami, FL 33131
Edward W. Westbrook, Esquire
Robert M. Turkewitz, EsquireRichardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman
174 East Bay Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Elihu Inselbuch, EsquireRita Tobin, Esquire
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
375 Park Avenue, 35th Floor
New York, NY 10152-3500
Peter Van N. Lockwood, EsquireNathan D. Finch, Esquire
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
One Thomas Circle, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
ToddMeyer, EsquireKilpatrick Stockton
1100 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Bernice Conn, Esquire
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700Los Angeles, CA 90067
Cindy Schultz
Ingersoll-Rand Fluid ProductsOne Aro Center
P. O. Box 151Bryan, OH 43506
Peter A. Chapman, Esquire572 Fernwood Lane
Fairless Hills, PA 19030
Michael B. Schaedle, EsquireBlank Rome LLP
One Logan Square
130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Hal Pitkow, Esquire
The Falls at Lambertville
351 South Main Street
Lambertville, NJ 08530
Alan B. Rich, Esq.
Elm Place
1401 Elm Street, Suite 4620
Dallas, TX 75201
Mr. Thomas Moskie
Bankers Trust Company
1 Bankers Trust Plaza
New York, NY 10001
Charles E. Gibson, III, Esquire
Gibson Law Firm
447 Northpark DriveRidgeland, MS 39157-5109
John P. Dillman, Esquire
Linebarger Heard Goggan Blair
Graham Pea & Sampson, LLP
P. O. Box 3064Houston, TX 77253-3064
Steven J. Kherkher, Esquire
Laurence G. Tien, EsquireWilliams Kherkher Hart & Boundas, LLP
8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite #600
Houston, TX 77017
Steven T. Hoort, Esquire
Ropes & GrayOne International Place
Boston, MA 02110-2624
Patrick J. Reilly, Esquire
Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A1000 N. West Street
Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Paul M. Baisier, Esquire
SEYFARTH SHAW
1545 Peachtree Street, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
William S. Katchen, Esquire
Duane, Morris LLP
744 Broad Street, Suite 1200
Newark, NJ 07102-3889
Sander L. Esserman, EsquireStutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka
2323 Bryan Street
Suite 2200
Dallas, TX 75201-2689
Delta Chemical Corporation2601 Cannery Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21226-1595
Paul D. Henderson, Esquire
Dies, Dies & Henderson1009 W. Green Avenue
Orange, TX 77630
Tara L. Lattomus, EsquireEckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1210Wilmington, DE 19801
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
53/59
Todd C. Meyers, EsquireKilpatrick Stockton, LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
Peter S. Goodman, Esquire
Andrews & Kurth LLP
450 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Brad N. Friedman, EsquireRachel S. Fleishman, Esquire
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Learch
One Pennsylvania Plaza
New York, NY 10019
Lewis Kruger, Esquire
Robert Raskin, Esquire
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
180 Maiden LaneNew York, NY 10038-4982
C. Randall Bupp, Esquire
Plastiras & Terrizzi
24 Professional Center Parkway
Suite 150San Rafael, CA 94903
Thomas J. Noonan, Jr.
Hermans Sporting Goods in Liquidation
C/o R&S Liquidation Company, Inc.
5 Lyons Mall PMB #530Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1928
William E. Frese, Esquire
Attn: Sheree L. Kelly, Esquire80 Park Plaza, T5D
P.O. Box 570
Newark, NJ 07101
Scott W. Wert, Esquire
Foster & Sear, L.L.P.
817 Greenview Drive
Grand Prairie, TX 75050
Rosa Dominy
Bankruptcy Administration
IOS Capital, Inc.1738 Bass Road
P.O. Box 13708
Macon, GA 31208-3708
State Library of Ohioc/o Michelle T. Sutter
Revenue Recovery
101 E. Town Street, Second Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Dorine Vork, Esquire
Stibbe
489 Fifth avenue, 32nd Floor
New York, New York 10017
Jonathan H. Alden, Esquire
Assistant General Counsel
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Credit Lyonnais1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-0602
Randall A. Rios, Esquire
Floyd Isgur Rios & Wahrlich, P.D.700 Louisiana, Suite 4600
Houston, TX 77002
Deanna D. Boll, EsquireKirkland & Ellis
Citigroup Center601 Lexington AvenueNew York, NY 10022
Paul G. Sumers, Esquire
TN Attorney Generals Office, Bankr. Unit
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TN 37202-0207
Harry Lee, Esquire
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Thomas O. Bean, Esquire
Eric P. Magnuson, Esquire
Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP
World Trade Center West155 Seaport Blvd.
Boston, MA 02210
Allan M. McGarvey, Esquire
Jon L. Heberling, Esquire
Roger M. Sullivan, Esquire
McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey745 South Main
Kalispell, MT 59901
Neil Berger, Esquire
Togut Segal & Segal LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 3335New York, NY 10119
Deirdre Woulfe Pacheo, Esquire
Wilentz Goldman & SpitzerP.O. Box 10
Woodbridge Center Drive
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
John G. Stoia, Jr., Esquire
Timothy G. Blood, Esquire
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & RobbinsLLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Philip Bentley, Esquire
Gary M. Becker, EsquireKramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Jacob C. Cohn, Esquire
Cozen OConnor
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
James Sottile, Esquire
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036-5802
Richard S. Lewis, Esquire
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
West Tower, Suite 500Washington, DC 20005
Marsha A. Penn, Esquire2425 West Loop south, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77036
Darrell W. Scott, Esquire
The Scott Law Group, P.S.926 W. Sprague Avenue, Suite 583
Spokane, WA 99201
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
54/59
Thomas M., EsquireHagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
One Main Street
4th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
Robert J. Dehney, Esquire
Morris Nicholas Arsht & Tunnell
1201 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899
David Pastor, EsquireEdward L. Manchur, Esquire
Gilman & Pastor LLP
225 Franklin Street
16th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Thomas G. Macauley, Esquire
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
919 Market Street, Suite 990PO Box 1028
Wilmington, DE 19899
Mark Minuti, Esquire
Saul Ewing LLP
222 Delaware AvenueP.O. Box 1266
Wilmington, DE 19899
Thomas G. Whalen, Esquire
Stevens & Lee
1105 North Market Street, 7th FloorWilmington, DE 19801
Mr. Mark Hankin
HanMar Associates, M.L.P.P.O. Box 26767
Elkins Park, PA 19027
Attn: Ted Weschler
Peninsula Capital, L.P.404B East Main Street, 2nd Floor
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Jordan N. Malz, Esquire
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Richard D. Trenk, EsquireHenry M. Karkowski, Esquire
Trenk, DiPasquale, Webster, Della Fera & Sodono P.C.
347 Mt. Pleasant Avenue
Suite 300West Orange, New Jersey 07052-3317
Janet S. Baer, Esquire
The Law Offices of Janet S. Baer P.C.
70 West Madison Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60602
Christopher R. Momjian, EsquireSenior Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
21 S. 12th Street, 3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Janet M. Weiss, Esquire
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Joseph L. Schwartz, Esquire
Curtis M. Plaza, Esquire
Craig T. Moran, EsquireRiker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP
Headquarters Plaza, 1 Speedwell Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07962
Mr. Harvey Schultz
The Schultz Organization900 Route 9 North
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Charles L. Finke, Assistant Attorney GeneralBrad Rogers, Attorney
Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation
Office of the General Counsel
1200 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-4026
Richard A. OHalloran, Esquire
BURNS, WHITE & HICKTON, LLC
531 Plymouth Road, Suite 500
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
W. Wallace Finlator, Jr.Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
Christopher M. Candon
Cohn & Whitesell LLP
101 Arch Street, Suite 1605Boston, MA 02110
Steven K. Kortanek, Esquire
Joanne B. Wills, Esquire
Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers919 Market Street, Suite 1000
Wilmington, DE 19801
William P. Bowden, Esquire
Amanda M. Winfree, Esquire
Ashby & Geddes, P.A.500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899
Jeffrey L. Roelofs, Esquire
Anderson & Kreiger, LLP43 Thorndike Street
Cambridge, MA 02141
John V. Fiorella, Esquire
Archer & Greiner, P.C.300 Delaware Avenue
Suite 1370
Wilmington, DE 19801
Thomas Tew, Esquire
Tew Cardenas L.L.P.Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor
1441 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida 33131-3407
James E. Wimberley, Esquire
McPherson, Monk, Hughes, Bradley & Wimberley,
L.L.P.
3120 Central Mall Drive
Port Arthur, TX 77642
Marc Abrams, Esquire
Willkie, Farr & Gallagher
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019-6099
Citadel Investment Group, L.L.C.
Attn: S. Jay Novatney
131 South Dearborn Street, 36th FloorChicago, IL 60603
Kirk A. Patrick III, Esquire
Donohue Patrick1500 Bank One Centre-North Tower
PO Box 1629
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-1629
Anne McGinness Kearse, Esquire
Motley Rice LLC28 Bridgeside Blvd.
PO Box 1792
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
Roger W. Hammond
Kforce Inc.1001 East Palm Avenue
Tampa, FL 33605
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
55/59
Mr. Eugene Paul Sullivan
29-B Plaza Delas Flores
Freehold, NJ 07728
Todd C. Schiltz, Esquire
Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP
Wilmington Trust Center
1100 N. Market Street, Suite 1001
Wilmington, DE 19801
Bruce D. Levin, EsquirePeter B. McGlynn, Esquire
Bernkopf Goodman LLP
125 Summer Street, Suite 1300
Boston, MA 02110
Frederick P. Furth, Esquire
The Furth Firm LLP
10300 Chalk Hill RoadHealdsburg, CA 95448
John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire
Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A.
1200 N. Broom StreetWilmington, DE 19806
Roger Frankel, Esquire
Richard H. Wyron, Esquire
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Columbia Center1152 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-1706
Robert J. Sidman, Esquire
Tiffany Strelow Cobb, Esquire
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP52 East Gay Street
P.O. Box 1008
Columbus, OH 43215
Justin Shrader, Esquire
Shrader & Associates, L.L.P.1021 Main Street, Ste. 1450
Houston, TX 77002
Sean Allen
BMC Group600 1st Avenue, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98104
M. David Minnick, EsquireMichael P. Ellis, Esquire
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2228
Gerald F. George, Esquire
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
50 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2228
Thomas A. Spratt, Jr., EsquirePepper Hamilton, LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
Eighteenth & Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Steven T.Davis
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP3 Mill Road, Suite 306A
Wilmington, DE 19806
D. Alexander Barnes, Esquire
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLPOne Penn Center, 19th Floor
1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd.Philadelphia, Pa 19103-1895
Steven J. McCardell, Esquire
Jared Inouye, EsquireDuham Jones & Pinegar
111 E. Broadway, Suite 900Salt Lake City, UT 84111
John Waters, EsquireIowa Department of Revenue
Collections Section
P.O. Box 10457
Des Moines, Iowa 50306
Yves LauzonMichel Belanger
Lauzon Belanger, Inc.
286, rue St-Paul Quest, Bureau 100
Montreal Quebec
Daniel K. Hogan, Esquire
The Hogan Firm
1311 Delaware Avenue
Wilmington, DE 19806
David A. Hickerson, Esquire
M. Jarrad Wright, Esquire
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
1300 Eye Street N.W., Suite 900Washington, D.C. 20005
Ralph I. Miller, Esquire
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
200 Cresent Court, Suite 300Dallas, TX 75201
Neil B. Glassman, Esquire
Steven M. Yoder, Esquire
Kathryn D. Sallie, Esquire
The Bayard Firm222 Delaware Avenue, Ste 900
Wilmington, DE 19801
Steven J. Mandelsberg, Esquire
Christina J. Kang, EsquireHahn & Hessen LLP
488 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tobey M. Daluz, Esquire
Leslie C. Heilman, EsquireBallard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Pryor Cashman LLP
Attn: Richard Levy, Jr., Esquire7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Jacqueline Dais-Visca, Esquire
Business Law Section
Ontario Regional Office
Suite 2400, Box 34
The Exchange Tower
130 King Street WestToronto, Ontario M5X 1K6
Peter D. Keisler, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice, Civil Division
Ben Franklin Station
P.O. Box 875
Washington, DC 20044-0875
Katherine White, Esquire
Sealed Air Corporation
20 Riverfront Boulevard
Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
Garvan F. McDaniel, Esquire
Bifferato Gentilotti & Balick, L.L.C.800 King Street, 1st Floor
Box 2165
Wilmington, DE 19801
John Kevin Welch, Esquire
Office of Legal ServicesFifth Floor, Capital Plaza Tower
Frankfort, KY 40601
John F. Dickinson, Jr., Esquire
Deputy Attorney General
Department of Law & Public SafetyDivision of Law
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
P.O. Box 093
Trenton, NY 08625-0093
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
56/59
Elihu E. Allinson, Esq.
Sullivan Hazeltine Allinson LLP
4 East 8th Street, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
Anthony Petru, EsquireQuynh L. Nguyen, Esquire
Hildebrand McLeod & Nelson LLP
350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 4 th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Daniel A. Speights, EsquireSpeights & Runyan
200 Jackson Avenue, East
P.O. Box 685
Hampton, SC 29924
Christopher D. Loizides, Esquire
Loizides, PA
1225 King Street, Suite 800Wilmington, DE 19801
John W. Kozyak, Esquire
David L. Rosendorf, Esquire
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, PA
2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th FloorCoral Gables, FL 33134
John T. Carroll, III, Esquire
Barry M. Klayman, Esquire
Cozen OConnor
1201 N. Market StreetSuite 1400
Wilmington, DE 19801
Robert B. Millner, Esquire
Christopher E. Prince, EsquireSonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 7800
Chicago, IL 60606
Frederick B. Rosner, Esquire
Messana Rosner & Stern LLP1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
James M. Brako, Esquire
Palm Beach County Tax CollectorP.O. Box 3715
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
Janet S. Baer, Esquire
The Law Offices of Janet S. Baer P.C.
70 West Madison Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60602
Brett D. Fallon, EsquireMorris James LLP500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19899
Garland Cassada, EsquireRichard C. Worf, Esquire
Robinson, Bradshaww & Hinson
101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Daniel C. Cohn
Murtha Cullina LLP
99 High Street
Boston, MA 02110-2320
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
57/59
0156127.1 }
FLINTKOTE 2002 SERVICE LIST
Parcels, Inc.
Vito I. DiMaio
230 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
David Klauder
Office of the United States Trustee
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street, Suite 2207Lockbox 35
Wilmington, DE 19801
ames L. Patton, Jr., Esq.
Edwin J. Harron, Esq.
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP000 West Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Laura Davis Jones, Esquire
James E. ONeill, EsquireSandra McLamb, Esquire
Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young, Jones & Weintraub919 N. Market Street, 17th Floor
PO Box 8705Wilmin ton, DE 19899-8705
Kevin T. Lantry, Esq.
Sally S. Neely, Esq.
Jeffrey E. Bjork, Esq.Sidley Austin LLP555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90013-6000
Mr. Lawrence Fitzpatrick
009 Lennox Drive
Bldg. 4, Suite 101
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
Randy Bono, Esq.
The Simmons Firm, LLC
707 Berkshire Blvd.
PO Box 521
East Alton, IL 62024
Charles A. Waters, Esq.
Waters & Kraus
3219 McKinney Ave.
Suite 3000
Dallas, TX 75204
Pam Wise, Esq.
Wise & Julian
555 College Ave.
PO Box 1108
Alton, IL 62002
David M. McClain, Esq.
Kazan & McClain
171 Twelfth Street
3rd Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
Mike Kaeske, Esq.
Kaeske Reeves LLP
1301 W. 25th
StreetAustin, TX 78705
R. Dean Hartley, Esq.
Hartley & OBrien
001 Main Street, Suite 600
Wheeling, WV 26003
Russell W. Budd, Esq.
Baron & Budd
3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219-4281
Glen W. Morgan, Esq.
Reaud, Morgan & Quinn
801 Laurel
Beaumont, TX 77701
cott M. Hendler, Esq.
Hendler Law Firm
16 Congress Ave.
uite 1230Austin, TX 78701
James J. Bedortha, Esq.
Goldberg, Persky, Jennings & White, PC
1030 Fifth Ave., 3rd Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6295
John J. Kittel, Esq.
Mazur & Kittel
30665 Northwestern Highway
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Denman H. Heard, Esq.
Watts & Heard LLP
Meilie Esperson Building
15 Walker Street, 16th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
John M. Deakle, Esq/
The Deakle Law Firm
802 Main Street
PO Box 2072
Hattiesburg, MS 39403
Alan R. Brayton, Esq.Christina C. Subic, Esq.
Brayton Purcell222 Rush LandingPO Box 6169Novato CA 94948-6169
oseph F. Rice, Esq.
Motley Rice LLC
8 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Mark H. Iola, Esq.
Stanley Mandel & Iola LLP
3100 Monticello Avenue
Suite 750
Dallas, TX 75205
Tom B. Scott, Esq.
Scott & Scott
PO Box 2009
Jackson, MS 39215-2009
Barbara J. Arison
Frantz Ward LLP
500 Key Center
27 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114-1230
T. Roe Frazer, II, Esq.
Frazer & Davidson, PA
500 East Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Brent Coon, Esq.
Brent Coon & Associates
917 Franklin
Suite 210
Houston, TX 77002
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
58/59
0156127.1 }
Thomas M. Wilson, Esq.
Kelley & Ferraro, L. L. P.
200 Key Tower27 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Peter Van N. Lockwood, Esq.
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
One Thomas Circle, NW
Washington, DC 20005
James A. Pardo, Jr., Esq.
King & Spalding
191 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Robert B. Millner, Esq.
onnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal
000 Sears Tower
33 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Scott W. Wert, Esq.
Foster & Sear, L.L.P.524 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 200
Arlington, TX 76011
Charlene D. Davis, Esq.
Eric M. Sutty, Esq.
The Bayard Firm222 Delaware Avenue Suite 900
PO Box 25130
Wilmington, DE 19899
Richard C. Sutton, Jr., Esq.
Reginauld T. Harris, Esq.
Rush Moore Craven Sutton Morry & Beh
37 Bishop Street, Suite 2400
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
David P. McClain, Esq.
Tony Draper, Esq.
McClain, Leppert & Maney, P.C.
South Tower, Pennzoil Place
711 Louisiana Street, Suite 3100
Houston, TX 77002
Carmella P. Keener, EsquireRosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.919 Market Street, Suite 1401
Wilmington, DE 19801
Bryan J. Farkas, Esquire
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP
100 One Cleveland Ctr.375 E. 9th Street
Cleveland, OH 44114
Brian L. Kasprzak
Michael J. Joyce, Esquire
Marks, ONeill, OBrien and Courtney913 N. Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Mark D. Plevin
Leslie A. Epley
Kelly R. Cusick, Esquire
Crowell & Moring LLP1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004-2595
oseph D. Frank
Frank/Gecker LLP
25 North LaSalle Street, Suite 625
Chicago, IL 60610
Reginald W. Jackson, Esquire
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP
52 E. Gay Street
Columbus, OH 43215
James E. Wimberley
McPherson, Monk, Hughes, Bradley,
Wimberley & Steele, L.L.P.
3120 Central Mall Drive
Port Arthur, TX 77642
Daniel K. Hogan
The Hogan Firm
311 Delaware Avenue
Wilmington, DE 19806
Samuel R. Grego, Esquire
Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
Two PPG Place Suite 400
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Julie A. Ardoin, Esq.
Julie Ardoin, LLC2200 Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Suite 2
Kenner, LA 70062-4032
Robert T. Aulgur, Jr., Esq.
Kristi J. Doughty, Esq.
Whittington & Aulgur
13 N. DuPont Highway
uite 110
Odessa, DE 19730
Anthony Sakalarios, Esquire
Morris, Sakalarios & Blackwell, PLLC
Post Office Drawer 1858
Hattiesburg, MS 39403-1858
Albert A. Ciardi, III, Esquire
Ciardi & Ciardi, P.C.
One Commerce Square
2005 Market Street, Suite 2020
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Robert W. Dremluk, Esquire
eyfarth Shaw LLP
20 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018-1405
Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq.Jason M. Madron, Esq.Christopher M. Samis, Esq.Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
David C. Christian II, Esquire
131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
Chicago, IL 60603
-
8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees
59/59
Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq.ason M. Madron, Esq.
Christopher M. Samis, Esq.Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.20 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Kelly-Ann Pokrywa, EsquireGordon & Gordon, P.C.505 Morris AvenueSpringfield, NJ 07081
Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax CollPO Box 54110Los Angeles, CA 90051-0110
Donna L. Harris, Esq.
inckney, Harris & Weidinger, LLC220 N. Market Street, Suite 950
Wilmington, DE 19801
Doug McManamy, Esq.
The Mathis Law Firm3575 Piedmont Road, NE Suite 1560
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
David Hensley D39084
California Medical FacilityP.O. Box 2500 H2-202-LVacaville, CA 95696