HTML Document View

Full title: Order Denying Motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants for a Stay Pending Appeal of the PIQ Order (Related Doc # 1711) (cas) (Entered: 05/12/2021)

Document posted on May 11, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 7 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

Based upon a review of the Motion, the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of the PIQ Order (Dkt. 1712), the Joinder to Motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants of Bestwall LLC for Stay Pending Appeal (Dkt. 1713), the Debtor’s Objection to the Motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants of Bestwall LLC for a Stay Pending Appeal of the PIQ Order (Dkt. 1735), and the arguments of counsel at 1 This Court has jurisdiction over the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334.There are instances in17 which it is appropriate to grant a stay pending appeal, but 18 they are rare and that relief is extraordinary, as you know, 19 and the Court can't conclude that this is such an instance.3 With respect to the second criteria that courts in th 4 Fourth Circuit must consider when faced with a motion for stay5 pending appeal, the Court can't conclude that the claimants 6 will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is denied.At today's hearing I've heard both parties request th 6 Court or sort of implicitly request on behalf of the debtor 7 that the Court in some way communicate with Judge Conrad and 8 ask him to consider this appeal on an expedited basis and I 9 will do that, having denied the motion, but, of course, as you10 all know, that is ultimately up to Judge Conrad how he chooses11 to proceed.

List of Tables

Document Contents

Steven T. Salata May 12 2021 Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Western District of North Carolina _____________________________ Laura T. Beyer United States Bankruptcy Judge UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION In re Chapter 11 BESTWALL LLC,1 Case No. 17-31795 Debtor. ORDER DENYING MOTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF ASBESTOS CLAIMANTS OF BESTWALL LLC FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL OF THE PIQ ORDER This matter came before the Court on the Motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants of Bestwall LLC for a Stay Pending Appeal of the PIQ Order (Dkt. 1711) (the “Motion”). Based upon a review of the Motion, the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of the PIQ Order (Dkt. 1712), the Joinder to Motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants of Bestwall LLC for Stay Pending Appeal (Dkt. 1713), the Debtor’s Objection to the Motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants of Bestwall LLC for a Stay Pending Appeal of the PIQ Order (Dkt. 1735), and the arguments of counsel at 1 The last four digits of the Debtor’s taxpayer identification number are 5815. The Debtor’s address is 133 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

1

the hearing before the Court on April 22, 2021 (the “Hearing”), the Court hereby FINDS, ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES that: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. The Motion is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. 2. For the reasons set forth on the record at the Hearing, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, the Motion is DENIED. This Order has been signed United States Bankruptcy Court electronically. The judge’s signature and court’s seal appear at the top of the Order.

2

EXHIBIT A

3

1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 2 CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3 IN RE: : Case No. 17-31795-LTB 4 BESTWALL LLC, : Chapter 11 5 Debtor. : Charlotte, North Carolina Thursday, April 22, 2021 6 : 9:32 a.m. 7 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 9 BEFORE THE HONORABLE LAURA TURNER BEYER, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 10 APPEARANCES (via ZoomGov): 11 For the Debtor: Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A 12 BY: GARLAND S. CASSADA, ESQ. RICHARD C. WORF, ESQ. 13 STUART PRATT, ESQ. 101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900 14 Charlotte, NC 28246 15 Jones Day BY: GREGORY M. GORDON, ESQ. 16 2727 North Harwood St., Suite 50 Dallas, TX 75201-1515 17 Jones Day 18 BY: JEFFREY B. ELLMAN, ESQ. 1420 Peachtree Str., N.E., #800 19 Atlanta, GA 30309 20 Audio Operator: COURT PERSONNEL 21 Transcript prepared by: JANICE RUSSELL TRANSCRIPTS 22 1418 Red Fox Circle Severance, CO 80550 23 (757) 422-9089 trussell31@tdsmail.com 24 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript25 produced by transcription service.

4

1 Answering court-ordered, court-ordered discovery is not 2 irreparable harm, nor is the potential mootness of an appeal 3 while that discovery is being conducted. And indeed, discover4 normally happens on a much shorter timeframe than four months,5 but is not held to warrant stays pending appeals that are not 6 likely to be successful. 7 So for all these reasons, we respectfully request tha 8 the Court deny the motion for stay and permit the parties to 9 continue working collaboratively and in good faith on the 10 questionnaire process that the Court has ordered. 11 Thank you. 12 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Worf. 13 All right. Well, having considered the, the pleading 14 and the arguments of counsel at today's hearing, the Court 15 concludes that it should deny the motion for stay pending 16 appeal that has been filed by the ACC. There are instances in17 which it is appropriate to grant a stay pending appeal, but 18 they are rare and that relief is extraordinary, as you know, 19 and the Court can't conclude that this is such an instance. 20 Having thoroughly and carefully considered the personal injury21 questionnaire motion in the first instance and granted it, I 22 can't conclude that the movants are likely to succeed on appea23 for all of the reasons stated in the, the order granting the 24 PIQ motion and on the record when I ruled. That conclusion is25 further bolstered by the fact that granting the motion was

5

1 within the Court's discretion and it's an interlocutory 2 discovery order. 3 With respect to the second criteria that courts in th 4 Fourth Circuit must consider when faced with a motion for stay5 pending appeal, the Court can't conclude that the claimants 6 will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is denied. To the 7 contrary, the claimants have urged the Court to get to an 8 estimation proceeding as soon as possible and even in today's 9 hearing Ms. Ramsey reiterated that point. Ms. Ramsey sort of 10 emphasized that claimants are harmed by delay and delay is the11 enemy of the claimants and I believe that granting a stay 12 pending appeal would necessarily require postponing the 13 estimation proceeding, perhaps well beyond May 2022, and if th14 movants are unsuccessful on appeal, as I believe they will be,15 that delay will ultimately be to their prejudice. And at the 16 end of the day, the claimants will have to provide basic 17 information about their claims. 18 So there's no irreparable harm in requiring the 19 claimants to respond to the personal injury questionnaire. 20 Granting a stay would injure the debtor, particularly in light21 of the fact that the questionnaire has already been served on 22 more than 800 law firms, and it would cause confusion on the 23 part of the claimants having been served with the 24 questionnaires. 25 And finally, the Court concludes that public interest

6

1 would not favor staying discovery that the Court has concluded2 is necessary to the efficient and expeditious administration o3 this case. And for the same reasons, the Court will decline t4 stay the, the PIQ order or related proceedings. 5 At today's hearing I've heard both parties request th 6 Court or sort of implicitly request on behalf of the debtor 7 that the Court in some way communicate with Judge Conrad and 8 ask him to consider this appeal on an expedited basis and I 9 will do that, having denied the motion, but, of course, as you10 all know, that is ultimately up to Judge Conrad how he chooses11 to proceed. 12 But I will, I will communicate with him and at least 13 make sure that this is on his radar. 14 And so having reached that conclusion, Mr. Worf, I 15 would ask that the debtor draft an order that is consistent 16 with the Court's remarks that denies the motion for stay 17 pending appeal. 18 And unless there is anything else the Court needs to 19 consider today, I think it would be appropriate to recess unti20 we have our next setting in this case. 21 MR. WORF: Thank you, your Honor. We, we will do 22 that. 23 MR. GORDON: And nothing further from the debtor, you 24 Honor. Thank you for your time today. 25 THE COURT: All right.

7