Skip to main content

§ 524(g)(4)(A)

W.R. Grace & Co., In re

Ruling
Court found that negligence claims against debtor’s insurer did not satisfy the derivativeliability and statutory relationship requirements necessary to be enjoined by the channelinginjunction. (Bankr. D. Del.)
Issue(s)
Effect of Discharge; Supplemental Injunctions in Chapter 11 Proceedings; Validity

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of W.R. Grace & Co., In re Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on September 23, 2019 , LexisNexis #1119-041

Hutt v. Maryland Cas. Co. (In re W.R. Grace & Co.)

Ruling
Workers asbestos state court claims against insurer were subject to channeling injunctionexcept for workers compensation claims based on policies not referenced in the injunction.(Bankr. D. Del.)
Issue(s)
Effect of Discharge; Supplemental Injunctions in Chapter 11 Proceedings; Validity and Enforceability; Generally and With Regard to Third Parties.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Hutt v. Maryland Cas. Co. (In re W.R. Grace & Co.) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on October 17, 2016 , LexisNexis #1116-053

In re Quigley Co.

Ruling
Channeling injunction in asbestos-related case did not apply to bar suits against debtor's parent.
Procedural posture

A bankruptcy court held that an injunction issued in a bankruptcy proceeding applied to stay certain suits against appellant debtor's parent company. The District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed, holding that the injunction did not bar the suits from proceeding. Appellants, the debtor and the parent company, appealed.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Quigley Co. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Commercial opinion summary, case decided on April 10, 2012 , LexisNexis #0512-017