HTML Document View

Full title: filed by B. Chad Ewing on behalf of Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust and Delaware Claims Processing Facility. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Ewing, B.) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

Document posted on Apr 18, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 2 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

This firm, along with Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, represents non-parties Delaware Claims Processing Facility (“DCPF”) and Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (the “Manville Trust,” and together with DCPF, the “Non-Parties”) in this proceeding.We write to notify the Court of recent developments that may affect DCPF’s compliance with the Court’s Order Granting Debtor’s Motion for Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Examination of Asbestos Trusts and Governing Confidentiality of Information Provided in Response [ECF No. 1672] Earlier this month, pursuant to the Rule 2004 Order, the Debtor served subpoenas on Armstrong World Industries Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, Babcock & Wilcox Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust, Federal Mogul U.S. Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Flintkote Asbestos Trust, Owens Corning Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Asbestos PI Trust, United States Gypsum Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, and WRG Asbestos PI Trust (the “Delaware Trusts”), as well as on DCPF.Additionally, the Motion states that the DII Industries, LLC Asbestos PI Trust (“DII Trust”), which is located in the Northern District of Texas and whose claims are also handled by DCPF, intends to join the Motion insofar as it seeks to quash or modify the subpoena served on DCPF.Although DCPF vigorously opposed the Debtor’s motion for Rule 2004 discovery, DCPF: did not appeal Your Honor’s decision granting the Debtor leave to seek such disclosure; was not aware that the Rule 2004 Order would be the subject of motion practice by the Delaware Trusts or the DII Trust when its undersigned counsel was working with the Debtor on the form of Rule 2004 Order or agreed to the form of the Rule 2004 Order; has not joined the Delaware Trusts’ Motion; and is not otherwise attempting to challenge the Rule 2004 Order or the subpoenas served by the Debtor pursuant to it.

List of Tables

Document Contents

JASON C. RUBINSTEIN jrubinstein@fklaw.com 212.833.1131 April 19, 2021 BY ECF The Honorable Laura T. Beyer United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina Charles R. Jonas Federal Building 401 West Trade Street, Room 111 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Re: In re: Bestwall LLC, No. 17-31795 (LTB) (Bankr. W.D.N.C.) Dear Judge Beyer: This firm, along with Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, represents non-parties Delaware Claims Processing Facility (“DCPF”) and Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (the “Manville Trust,” and together with DCPF, the “Non-Parties”) in this proceeding. We write to notify the Court of recent developments that may affect DCPF’s compliance with the Court’s Order Granting Debtor’s Motion for Bankruptcy Rule 2004 Examination of Asbestos Trusts and Governing Confidentiality of Information Provided in Response [ECF No. 1672] (the “Rule 2004 Order”). Earlier this month, pursuant to the Rule 2004 Order, the Debtor served subpoenas on Armstrong World Industries Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, Babcock & Wilcox Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust, Federal Mogul U.S. Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Flintkote Asbestos Trust, Owens Corning Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Asbestos PI Trust, United States Gypsum Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, and WRG Asbestos PI Trust (the “Delaware Trusts”), as well as on DCPF. See ECF No. 1698. Today, the Delaware Trusts moved before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (which is the district in which the Delaware Trusts are located) for an order quashing or modifying those subpoenas (the “Motion”). In support of their request for that relief, the Delaware Trusts assert that under their bankruptcy court approved trust distribution procedures, they are required to protect the confidentiality of the information submitted to them by asbestos personal injury victims when that information is sought by third parties for purposes other than determining whether the victims’ claims are valid and payable. Citing the sensitivity of such information, the Delaware Trusts seek certain safeguards in addition to the protections that this Court provided in the Rule 2004 Order. A copy of the Delaware Trusts’ motion is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Additionally, the Motion states that the DII Industries, LLC Asbestos PI Trust (“DII Trust”), which is located in the Northern District of Texas and whose claims are also

1

handled by DCPF, intends to join the Motion insofar as it seeks to quash or modify the subpoena served on DCPF. Although DCPF vigorously opposed the Debtor’s motion for Rule 2004 discovery, DCPF: did not appeal Your Honor’s decision granting the Debtor leave to seek such disclosure; was not aware that the Rule 2004 Order would be the subject of motion practice by the Delaware Trusts or the DII Trust when its undersigned counsel was working with the Debtor on the form of Rule 2004 Order or agreed to the form of the Rule 2004 Order; has not joined the Delaware Trusts’ Motion; and is not otherwise attempting to challenge the Rule 2004 Order or the subpoenas served by the Debtor pursuant to it. In this proceeding, DPCF has sometimes been referred to interchangeably with the trusts it services, but we respectfully submit that the trusts’ positions should not be imputed to DCPF. DPCF is the contractual claims processor for, but legally and organizationally distinct from, the Delaware Trusts and the DII Trust. Thus, when DCPF objected to the Rule 2004 motion, it made clear that it was filing that objection exclusively on its own behalf and that it was not purporting to “limit or waive any objections the individual” trusts might assert to subpoenas issued to them. See ECF No. 1321 ¶ 14 & n.6. The Debtor also recognized the distinction between DPCF and the trusts in its briefing on the Rule 2004 motion; its proposed form of order contemplated serving subpoenas on each of the trusts individually, see ECF No. 1238 ¶ 2 n.3, and we understand that is what the Debtor ultimately did. See ECF No. 1698. DCPF understands its obligations under the Rule 2004 Order, and it is poised to fulfill them. It recognizes, however, that the ruling sought by the Delaware Trusts from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware could place DCPF in the impossible position of having to comply with two conflicting orders. In that scenario, we would expect to seek the Court’s guidance on how DCPF should proceed in light of its obligations under the Rule 2004 Order. We will update the Court promptly on any developments concerning the Delaware Trusts’ Motion and the effect, if any, such developments might have on DCPF’s ability to comply in a timely manner with the Rule 2004 Order. Please be advised that the developments described above do not concern the Manville Trust. The proceedings in Delaware do not seek to quash the subpoena served by the Debtor on the Manville Trust, and the Manville Trust intends to comply with its obligations thereunder. Respectfully, s/ Jason C. Rubinstein Jason C. Rubinstein Enclosure cc: All Counsel (by ECF)

2