You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re Owens Corning Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

Citations: 560 B.R. 229; 76 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1224; 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 3923; 63 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 111; 2016 WL 6695778Docket: Case No. 00-3837 (KG) (D.I. 21106); Case No. 00-4471 (KG) (D.I. 10813); Case No. 01-1139 (KG) (D.I. 32718); Case No. 01-2094 (KG) (D.I. 12711); Case No. 01-2471 (KG) (D.I. 4094); Case No. 02-10429(KG) (D.I. 10351); Case No. 02-12687 (KG) (D.I. 3751); Case

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware; November 8, 2016; Us Bankruptcy; United States Bankruptcy Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this bankruptcy proceeding, Honeywell International, Inc. and Ford Motor Company sought access to Rule 2019 Exhibits containing sensitive data related to asbestos claims. The companies argued that under Bankruptcy Code Section 107, these exhibits should be publicly accessible to investigate fraudulent claims and for unspecified lobbying activities. However, the North American Refractories Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust Advisory Committee (NARCO TAC) objected, asserting privacy concerns for claimants. Recognizing the exhibits as judicial records with presumptive public access, the court nonetheless used its discretion to impose restrictions, aligning with past rulings that limit access for estimation proceedings only. The court granted limited access for investigating fraudulent claims, permitting data sharing with the NARCO Trust in aggregate form without identifying individuals. Access for lobbying was deemed unjustified. The court mandated a protocol for handling these exhibits, including appointing an overseer and requiring destruction of the documents after use, with costs borne by Honeywell and Ford. This decision underscores the balance between transparency in bankruptcy proceedings and the protection of sensitive claimant information.

Legal Issues Addressed

Access to Judicial Records under Bankruptcy Code Section 107

Application: The court recognizes the Rule 2019 Exhibits as judicial records with a presumption of public access, but it emphasizes the court's discretion to limit access when necessary.

Reasoning: The Court recognizes that the Rule 2019 Exhibits are judicial records, which typically have a presumption of public access, but acknowledges that the court can seal documents when necessary.

Appointment of Overseer and Protocol for Document Handling

Application: The court sets a protocol for document handling, including appointing an overseer and requiring the destruction of exhibits post-use at Honeywell and Ford's expense.

Reasoning: The Court will appoint an overseer for the production of the exhibits, with costs borne by Honeywell and Ford, following a joint submission of names by the parties.

Limits on Access for Investigatory and Lobbying Purposes

Application: The court limits access to the Rule 2019 Exhibits for investigatory purposes related to fraud, prohibiting use for lobbying efforts due to insufficient justification.

Reasoning: Honeywell and Ford have not sufficiently justified their intended use of the Rule 2019 Exhibits, particularly for lobbying purposes, which the Court has previously deemed inappropriate.

Modification of Protective Orders under Pansy Standard

Application: The court applies the Pansy standard to balance public and privacy interests, allowing access with restrictions to prevent individual identification.

Reasoning: The Court emphasizes the necessity of establishing a proper purpose under the Pansy standard to modify protective orders.

Standing to Object in Bankruptcy Proceedings

Application: The court acknowledges the NARCO TAC's standing to object to the motion as a party in interest representing asbestos claimants, supported by established case law.

Reasoning: The court acknowledges NARCO TAC’s standing to object, affirming it as a party in interest representing asbestos claimants, a designation supported by established case law.