Fw: Update from Nevadan's regarding Dow & Appeals

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " ilena rose " <ilena@...>

<Recipient List Suppressed:;>

Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:51 AM

Subject: Update from Nevadan's regarding Dow & Appeals

> (Ilena, you are free to post this on the Web if you choose. It

supplements

> what the Tort Claimants' Committee had to say about the appeals process)

>

>

> Here's the latest from the Nevadans re Appeals, etc.:

>

> Unlike the U.S. Government, the Nevadans did not seek a second hearing

before

> the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and ask for them to reconsider. It

should be

> remembered that the 6th Circuit did not find that there were " unusual

> circumstances " that would justify, on the record, what Dow Corning and the

Tort

> Claimants' Committee tried to do in this case, namely wipe out the

Nevadans'

> claims against the non-bankrupt Dow Chemical. However, the Nevadans'

victory

> in the 6th Circuit is not a complete victory unless and until the U.S.

Supreme

> Court resolves the conflict in the Circuit Courts of Appeals in this

country

> and rules that, regardless of " ununusual circumstances, " a non-bankrupt

party

> like Dow Chemical is not entitled to the benefits of bankrtupcy law (e.g.,

a

> free ticket out of litigation) without undergoing the burden of filing

> bankruptcy itself.

>

> So, rather than wait till the end of the upcoming hearings before Judge

Hood -

> - where the TCC and Dow Corning get a " third bite " at the apple in hopes

of

> showing Judge Hood that " unusuual circumstances " exist to allow Dow

Chemical to

> ride Dow Corning's coattails out of litigation - - the Nevadans sought to

speed

> up that process by filing a Petition for Certiorari (akin to an appeal) to

the

> U.S. Supreme Court asking them to rule, like Judge Spector ruled, that a

> bankruptcy court does not have the legal power to extinguish the liability

that

> a non-bankrupt party (Dow Chemical) owes to non-consenting creditors who

refuse

> to go along with this charade (the Nevadans).

>

> While Petitions for Certiorari are routinely denied by the U.S. Supreme

Court,

> the Nevadans hope their Petition will be the exception to the rule. And,

while

> we have every confidence that Judge Hood will conclude that no " unusual

> circumstances " exist to wipe out the Nevadans' claims against Dow

Chemical, we

> have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene at an early stage in hopes

of

> short-circuiting the necessity of such a hearing, which would be followed

by an

> inevitable round of appeals by whoever the losing parties are following

such a

> hearing. Further, it was necessary for the Nevadans to file said

Petition to

> preserve their objection to that portion of the 6th Circuit ruling which

said

> that in rare and unusual circumstances a company like Dow Chemical might

be

> able to get a release from liability without filing for bankruptcy. So,

file

> we did.

>

> Perhaps the Nevadans strongest argument to the U.S. Supreme Court is this

> [paraphrased]: " Counting the 3 years that the womens' claims against Dow

> Corning were held up by the failed Global Settlement (92-95) and the 7

years

> this case has been before the federal bankruptcy, district and appeals

courts

> (95-2002), 10 years have elapsed. This is an obscene delay by an any

standard

> (most Plans take 6 to 9 months to confirm). This is a delay occasioned

mostly

> by Dow Chemical's steadfast refusal to allow its corporate child Dow

Corning to

> propose any plan except an illegal one. The U.S. Supreme Court could end

the

> charade of " third party releases " and " unusual circumstances " by affirming

> Judge Spector's Confirmation of the Plan in its entirety. That

Confirmation

> allows all women who voted Yes on the Plan to come into the Plan, settle

their

> cases and be done with it. That Confirmation also allows a very limited

group

> of women who voted No on the Plan and who live in states with rights

against

> Dow Chemical to continue their lawsuits against Dow Chemical outside of

the

> Plan. " Everyone wins.

>

> Long live States' Rights. Nothing that the Nevadans are doing or have

done has

> contributed to a single minute of the delay that Dow Chemical has caused

in

> this case by refusing to allow its corporate child to emerge from

bankruptcy

> with anything but an illegal plan. Nothing.

>

> Finally, I want to again recognize and pay tribute to my brother,

White,

> Jr., the solo practitioner bankruptcy lawyer, for accepting my challenge

to

> fight the absurdity and illegality of extinguishing valid state law claims

> against Dow Chemical. Without his bankruptcy law expertise, and the help

of

> many others too numerous to mention here, our clients and I would not have

been

> able to sustain the effort we have sustained to date. Blessed, too, are

those

> of our clients who are still alive (several have died from auto-immune

disease)

> and who still encourage us aplenty.

>

> Geoffrey White

> White & Meany

> Reno and Las

> Vegas, Nevada

>

> In response to:

> ~~~~~~~~

>

> Sat, 4 May 2002 23:15:10

> Subject: Update from TCC

> From: ilena rose <ilena@...>

>

> ~~~ thanks bonny ~~~

>

> http://www.tortcomm.org/

>

> Welcome to the Tort Claimants Committee website, last updated on April 29,

> 2002.

> Current Events

>

> Updated April 29, 2002:

>

> As of today, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has not issue their ruling

on

> the pending motion by the U.S. Government to rehear the appeals. We do not

> know what is causing the delay. As soon as we are informed of the ruling,

> we will post it on the TCC website.

>

> Updated April 8, 2002:

>

> The TCC has received many questions from claimants asking " Where are we

> with the appeals? What is happening with this case and when will it ever

be

> over? " Below is an update on the case and the appeals:

>

> Judge Page Hood held an informal status conference with the parties

> on February 11, 2002 in Detroit, Michigan. A schedule to submit briefs on

> additional " findings of fact " was discussed, and the parties stated that

> they would submit a proposed scheduling order. Proposed schedules were

> submitted. However, before a final scheduling order could be entered, the

> U.S. Government filed a " Petition For Rehearing And Suggestion For

> Rehearing En Banc " to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition asks

> the 6th Circuit to hold another hearing of the full panel ( " en banc " means

> the full panel of all judges on the 6th Circuit Court) to rehear the

> arguments on whether the Plan of Reorganization can release claims of

> insurers or third parties. The 6th Circuit has already ruled on these

> issues in its January 29, 2002 order, but the U.S. Government's petition

> asks that the court reconsider and overturn its earlier ruling.

>

> Under Rule 35(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, such petitions are

> " not favored and ordinarily will not be entered. " Under the Court's

rules,

> the 6th Circuit has 14 days to reconsider. As soon as we are made aware of

> whether the 6th Circuit has agreed to rehear the case, we will post news

on

> the TCC website.

>

> Until the 6th Circuit rules on the pending petition filed by the U.S.

> Government, Judge Hood does not have jurisdiction over the U.S.

> Government's objections to the Plan. As a result, no scheduling order has

> been entered, and a date for a hearing before Judge Hood has not been set.

> If the 6th Circuit declines to rehear the case, we anticipate that Judge

> Hood will then issue a scheduling order and set a date for a hearing. We

> will post any news of a hearing on the TCC website.

>

> Unfortunately, there will be unexpected delay in the appellate process.

The

> TCC has and will continue to remind the courts of the lengthy delay that

> claimants have endured and urge them to expedite the appeals. Please

direct

> any questions to this website.

>

>