In re: DOW CORNING CORPORATION, Debtor. CLASS FIVE NEVADA CLAIMANTS (00-2516); JANET S. LACY, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Andrea Lane Atherton; JAMA NMI RUSSANO, individually and as guardian for Richard Todd Russano; MICHAEL NMI RUSSANO; ANDREA LANE ATHERTON, Claimant, a minor; RICHARD TODD RUSSANO, a minor (00-2517); 1,300 AUSTRALIAN TORT CLAIMANTS (00-2518); MARTHA S. JACOBS (00-2520); HELEN D. SCHROEDER (00-2521); BEATRIX SHISHIDO (00-2522); PENNSYLVANIA COORDINATED SILICONE BREAST IMPLANT LITIGATION (00-2523); KAREN L. HUSTEAD (00-2524); CERTAIN FOREIGN CLAIMANTS (00-2525); HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; NUTMEG INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST STATE UNDERWRITERS AGENCY OF NEW ENGLAND REINSURANCE CORPORATION; TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY (01-1001); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (01-1102); NEW ZEALAND CLAIMANTS (01-1349), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOW CORNING CORPORATION, Debtor; OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS; THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; CORNING, INCORPORATED; OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF PHYSICIAN CREDITORS; HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; NUTMEG INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST STATE UNDERWRITERS AGENCY OF NEW ENGLAND REINSURANCE CORPORATION; TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY; CERTAIN LLOYDS OF LONDON UNDERWRITERS; CERTAIN LONDON MARKET INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendants-Appellees., 280 F.3d 648


Summary

The first principal issue presented was whether a bankruptcy court may enjoin a non-consenting creditor's claims against a non-debtor to facilitate a reorganization plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's conclusion that, under certain circumstances, a bankruptcy court may enjoin a non-consenting creditor's claim against a non-debtor to facilitate a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. However, the appellate court acknowledged that the bankruptcy court provided no explanation or discussion of the evidence underlying its findings with regards to the "unusual circumstances" required for such an injunction. The second issue presented was whether the Plan's classification of foreign claimants as separate from domestic claimants was improper. Where the bankruptcy court found that tort recoveries in the United States tend to be "significantly higher" than those in foreign jurisdictions and supported separate classifications, the ...