Kane
v. Johns-Manville Corp. (2nd
Cir 1988) (No standing)
Facts:
Manville filed a Chapter 11 reorg. Kane and a group of 765
individuals he represented are persons with asbestos injuries who had
filed PI suits against Manville prior to the Chapter 11 petition. The
suits were stayed and he and others were designated as Class 4
creditors. Kane objects because: 1) it discharges the rights of
future victims who do not have “claims” within §101(4), 2) it
was adopted w/out constitutionally adequate notice, 3) voting
procedures violated the code and due process, and 4) the plan fails
to conform w/ the requirements of §1129(a) and (b).
Holding:
Kane lacks sanding to challenge the plan on the grounds that it
violates the rights of future claimants and other third parties, and
reject on the merits his remaining claims that the plan violates his
rights regarding voting and fails to meet the requirements of §1129.
Affirmed the order of the confirmation of the plan.
Analysis:
A court appointed legal representative negotiated on behalf of future
claimants. Manville was directed to give notice to inform person
with present health claims of the pendency of the reorg and their
opportunity to participate. Kane can only challenge a deprivation of
his own rights. He cannot make claims on third party grievances.
§524(g):
1994 amendments added “personal injury, recovery for damages
allegedly caused by the presence of, or exposure to, asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.”
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment