A.H. Robins Co., Inc., In re

Decision Date16 June 1989
Docket Number88-1754,Nos. 88-1750,88-1756,88-1758,MENARD-SANFORD,s. 88-1750
Citation880 F.2d 694
Parties, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,955 In re A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Debtor. (Eight Cases.) Rosemary; Karen Valenzuela; Constance Miller Engelsberg; Nancy Lauri Adams; Carolyn Harris, Claimants-Appellants, v. Ralph R. MABEY; The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Donna OBERG, et al., Claimants-Appellants, v. The OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Albert L. SIVLEY, Claimant-Appellant, v. The OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Diana BROSCO; Catherine Crawford; Mary Fischer, et al., Claimants-Appellants, v. The OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Lynn SCOTT; Carol Lopez, et al., Claimants-Appellants, v. The OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incor
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Alan B. Morrison (Linda Donaldson, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C., on brief), for claimants-appellants.

James Crawford Roberts (James S. Crockett, Jr., Mays & Valentine, Richmond, Va., Dennis J. Drebsky, Alesia Ranney-Marinelli, Kirk C. Loos, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City, Ralph D. Pittle, Medical Legal Consultants of Washington, Seattle, Wash., John T. Baker, Bragg & Dubofsky, Denver, Colo., Joseph McDowell, Ill, Cullity, Kelley & McDowell, Manchester, N.H., W. Bradley

Post, Post, Syrios & Bradshaw, Wichita, Kan., Frederic A. Bremseth, Doshan, Lord & Bremseth, Wayzata, Minn., Murray Drabkin, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Washington, D.C., Harold S. Novikoff, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York City, Henri E. Norris, Stanley K. Joynes, III, Rilee, Cantor, Arkema & Edmonds, Richmond, Va., Robert M. Miller, Berlack, Israels & Liberman, New York City, John S. Kinzey, Jr., Steven J. McCardell, Leboeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MaCrae, Salt Lake City, Utah, on brief), for debtor-appellee.

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.

WIDENER, Circuit Judge:

On July 26, 1988, the bankruptcy court and the district court jointly confirmed the "Sixth Amended and Restated Plan of Reorganization" (the Plan) submitted by A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (Robins). In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 88 B.R. 742 (E.D.Va.1988). Rosemary Menard-Sanford and certain other personal injury claimants, who voted against the Plan, appeal. They challenge the district court's approval of the disclosure statement, the district court's use of a one claimant one vote voting procedure, the district court's feasibility finding, and a certain injunction found in the Plan. We affirm.

On August 21, 1985, Robins filed a petition for reorganization relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. For an explanation of the details surrounding Robins' bankruptcy and some of the resulting litigation, see the district court's opinion in In Re A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 88 B.R. 742 (E.D.Va.1988), and our other published opinions regarding this bankruptcy. 1

On April 1, 1988, the district court approved the "Sixth Amended and Restated Disclosure Statement". The appellants argue that the disclosure statement does not contain adequate information. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(b) requires that before solicitation of approval or disagreement of a plan of reorganization the disclosure statement must contain "adequate information" and be approved by the court. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a)(1) defines "adequate information" as "information of a kind, and in sufficient detail, as far as is reasonably practicable in light of the nature and history of the debtor and the condition of the debtor's books and records, that would enable a hypothetical reasonable investor typical of holders of claims or interests of the relevant class to make an informed judgment about the plan." The determination of whether the disclosure statement has adequate information is made on a case by case basis and is largely within the discretion of the bankruptcy court. In the Matter of Texas Extrusion Corp., 844 F.2d 1142, 1157 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 311, 102 L.Ed.2d 330 (1988). The challenged disclosure statement began its 261 pages of information with a thorough summary of the complex plan in terms that almost anyone could understand. It explained, among much more, the amount to be put into trust and made available for the payment of claims, the various estimates of how much money was required, a warning that the funds furnished to pay the estimates might not be enough to pay all claims in full, the sources of funding, an explanation of the various funding provisions which depended on the outcome of various appeals, how claims would be handled, the four options for processing claims and the background of the case. The disclosure statement continued with a discussion of the Robins company, the Dalkon Shield, various litigation regarding the Dalkon Shield, the reorganization, the proposed merger with American Home Products Corporation (AHP), the historical stock values of both AHP and Robins, and federal income tax consequences. The final part of the disclosure statement contains actual copies of the Plan, the Claimants Trust Agreement, the Other Claimants Trust Agreement, the Claims Resolution Facility, the Merger Agreement, Aetna's additional insurance policy, AHP's Annual Report, the Liquidation Analysis and biographies of the proposed Trustees.

The appellants contend that the disclosure statement is misleading because it contains a statement that in order to approve the Plan the district court must make a finding that the Plan contains enough money to satisfy all claims in full. They point out that in reality there may not be enough money to cover all claims. The disclosure statement, however, makes that clear to the claimants. It states that "if the Court's estimate turns out to be too low, Robins will not have to make any more money available to pay claims. In addition, the Plan would generally take away your right to recover for Dalkon Shield injuries against any other parties." The disclosure statement later repeats that thought in explicit terms: "[e]stimation is not an exact science. The money available to pay Dalkon Shield claims may prove to be more or less than the actual value of such claims. If the estimation decision underestimated the value of the claims, there may not be enough money for the Claimants Trust to pay all claims in full." Thus, we think appellants' contention is without merit.

The appellants' principal challenge to the disclosure statement, however, is that it is inadequate because it does not contain ranges of recovery for claimants with specified injuries. The disclosure statement notes that "[t]here is no certain way to predict the amount that you could receive under option 3. Each claim is different. Factors that affect the value of a claim include the nature of the injury, the medical evidence available to prove the injury, the medical evidence to prove Dalkon Shield use, the presence of other causes of your injury, how long ago you were injured, and what steps you took to enforce your legal rights after your injury became apparent." There is no requirement in case law or statute that a disclosure statement estimate the value of specific unliquidated tort claims. In fact, with so many various unliquidated personal injury claims which vary so much in the extent and nature of injury, medical...

To continue reading

Request your trial
230 cases
  • Dragnea v. Dragnea (In re Dragnea)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of California
    • October 29, 2019
    ... ... State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Brockett , 737 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1152 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ; In re ... Hillis Motors, Inc. v. Hawaii Auto Dealers' Ass'n , 997 F.2d 581, 588 (9th Cir. 1993). A The ... 1992) ; Menard-Sanford v. Mabey (In re A.H. Robins Co.) , 880 F.2d 694, 700-02 (4th Cir. 1989). The Supreme Court has not ... ...
  • In re Purdue Pharma, L.P.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 16, 2021
    ... ... includes proposed releases ." In re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. , 599 B.R. 717, 726 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (Wiles, B.J.) (emphasis added). When ... A. Side A Mortimer D. Sackler, who died in 2010, served as the co-chief executive officer of Purdue with his brother Raymond until the end ... , Inc., 960 F. 2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992) (securities); In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc. , 880 F.2d 694 (4th Cir. 1989) (medical devices). The revisions ... ...
  • In re Texaco Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 15, 1995
    ... ... See In re Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., 6 F.3d 1184, 1195 (7th Cir.1993); accord, Ionosphere, 171 B.R. at 20; Kiker, 98 B.R. at ... Grady v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 839 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1988) (citing Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U.S. 274, 279, 105 S.Ct ... ...
  • In re Dow Corning Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • July 16, 1996
    ... ... claims of any other insured, including Dow Chemical Company, Corning, Inc. and Hoechst-Marion-Roussel for all product liability claims up to the ... proceeds will be as provided in an agreement between the Debtor and its co-insureds, which was approved by this Court on January 25, 1996. See In ... See Menard-Sanford v. Mabey (In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc.), 880 F.2d 694 (4th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 959, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
16 books & journal articles
  • Joshua M. Silverstein, Hiding in Plain View: a Neglected Supreme Court Decision Resolves the Debate Over Non-debtor Releases in Chapter 11 Reorganizations
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 23-1, March 2007
    • Invalid date
    ...(holding that courts may grant non-debtor releases pursuant to their "equitable and inherent" power under the Bankruptcy Code), aff'd, 880 F.2d 694 (4th Cir. 1989). 21 Class Five Nev. Claimants v. Dow Corning Corp. (In re Dow Corning Corp.), 280 F.3d 648, 656 (6th Cir. 2002) ("The Bankruptc......
  • Here Lions Roam: Cisg as the Measure of a Claim's Value and Validity and a Debtor's Dischargeability
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 34-2, June 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...re Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc., 197 B.R. 771, 775 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996).90. In re A.H. Robins Co., 88 B.R. 742 (E.D. Va. 1988), aff'd, 880 F.2d 694 (4th Cir. 1989).91. In re Armstrong, 294 B.R. at 354; see also, e.g., Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Enron Corp., No. 04 Civ. 5499 (HB), 200......
  • Morally Bankrupt: Bankruptcy Law, Corporate Responsibility, and Sexual Misconduct.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 97 No. 3, September 2023
    • September 22, 2023
    ...and threatening to implode settlements unless they receive injunctions and releases in bankruptcy court."). (58) In re A.H. Robins Co., 880 F.2d 694, 701-02 (4th (59) 11 U.S.C. [section] 524(g)(4). (60) 11 U.S.C. [section] 524(e) states that only the debtor is discharged in bankruptcy. Some......
  • Chapter VII Plan Negotiations
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Institute Representing the Creditors' Committee: A Guide for Practitioners
    • Invalid date
    ...Corning Corp., 280 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 2002); In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc., 960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992); In re A.H. Robins Co., 880 F.2d 694,702 (4th Cir. 1989). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has declined to adopt a rule in favor of or prohibiting nonconsensual releas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT