View
302
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
{00133641.DOCX; 4}
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re:
In re
JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION,
MANVILLE CORPORATION, MANVILLE
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
MANVILLE EXPORT CORPORATION,
JOHNS-MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, MANVILLE SALES
CORPORATION, f/k/a JOHNS-MANVILLE
SALES CORPORATION, successor by merger
to MANVILLE BUILDINGS MATERIALS
CORPORATION, MANVILLE PRODUCTS
CORPORATION and MANVILLE SERVICE
CORPORATION, MANVILLE
INTERNATIONAL CANADA, INC.,
MANVILLE CANADA, INC., MANVILLE
INVESTMENT CORPORATION,
MANVILLE PROPERTIES CORPORATION,
ALLAN-DEANE CORPORATION, KEN-
CARYL RANCH CORPORATION, JOHNS-
MANVILLE IDAHO, INC., MANVILLE
CANADA SERVICE INC.,
SUNBELT CONTRACTORS, INC.,
Case Nos. 82 B 11656,
82 B 11657, 82 B 11660,
82 B 11661, 82 B 11665 through
82 B 11673 inclusive,
82 B 11675, 82 B 11676 (BRL)
Debtors.
John Sword and Barbara Ann Sword, H/W, Adversary No. ___________
John Tanti, Personal Representative for
the Estate of Nicholas Borg, deceased,
Joseph Balzan and Paraskevi Kastani, Personal
Representative for the
Estate of Michael Kastanis,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust and
Claim Resolution Management Corporation
Defendants.
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 1 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
John Sword and Barbara Ann Sword, H/W, John Tanti, Personal Representative for the
Estate of Nicholas Borg, deceased, Joseph Balzan and Paraskevi Kastani, Personal
Representative for the Estate of Michael Kastanis (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), by and through
undersigned counsel, as and for their Complaint against Manville Personal Injury Settlement
Trust (“the Trust”) and Claim Resolution Management Corporation (“CRMC” and, collectively
with the Trust, the “Defendants”), respectfully state as follows:
Preliminary Statement
1. Each Plaintiff or their Decedents were occupationally exposed to asbestos dust
and fibres while working inside of the sovereign territory of the United States. Accordingly, by
this Complaint, the Plaintiffs request this Court to declare that the claims they have filed with the
Trust, in accordance with the TCP (as defined below), should properly be categorized and
processed by the Defendants as standard claims and not foreign claims.
2. Plaintiffs further request that the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust,
(hereinafter “the Trust”), and Claim Resolution Management Corporation, (hereinafter
“CRMC”), each be enjoined from its practice of classifying, categorizing and processing the
claims of any foreign national, occupationally exposed to asbestos on an active warship of the
United States Navy, as a foreign claim in the future.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiffs John Winston and Barbara Ann Sword are individuals residing at 78
Wasdale Gardens, Estover, Plymouth, Devon PL6 8TN, England.
4. Plaintiff John Tanti, personal representative of the estate of Nicholas Borg, is an
individual residing at 35 Triq tan-Nofs, Siggiewi, Malta.
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 2 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 3
5. Plaintiff Joseph Balzan is an individual residing at 10 Znuber Street, Sta. Lucia,
Malta.
6. Plaintiff Paraskevi Kastani, personal representative for the estate of Michael
Kastanis, is an individual residing at 12 Sarandaporou Street, Megara, Greece.
7. Defendant, the Trust, is a legal entity formed in 1988 with an address of 143
Bedford Road, Suite 200, Katonah, NY 10536. A further description of the Trust’s formation,
purpose and activities is set forth below.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant, CRMC, is an entity wholly owned and
controlled by the Trust, with offices at 3110 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 200 Falls Church, VA
22042-0683, which has and continues to operate and do business in the State of New York and
within the Southern District of New York. It acts as an organization providing various forms of
claims processing services to trusts involved in the administration of various bankruptcies.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 USC § 1334. This is a
core proceeding pursuant to 28 USC §§ 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A), (E) and (O). Venue in this
district is proper pursuant to 28 USC §§ 157 (b)(1) and (b)(2)(A), (E) and (O). The statutory
predicates for this proceeding are Sections 541, 542 and 105 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Additionally, relevant provisions of the Confirmation Order and the Trust Agreement (as each
term is defined below) confer upon this Court exclusive jurisdiction to, inter alia, hear and
determine any and all disputes arising out of the Plan, the Trust and the Trust Agreement.
NEED FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
10. Plaintiffs have raised an issue creating a substantial controversy, going to the
question of whether claims, of a limited number of foreign nationals, are being properly treated
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 3 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 4
under the provisions of the Trust’s own mandates and the TDP and by the CRMC in response to
directives by the Trust.
11. The request for expeditious relief in this fashion has arisen because repeated,
informal efforts to resolve the issues herein without the need for judicial intervention, have been
unsuccessful. Without being granted the relief requested herein, the Plaintiffs will continue to
suffer immediate and irreparably harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
12. The issues presented herein are by no means procedural in nature. They involve
the fundamental rights of these Plaintiffs and a substantial controversy involving whether their
claims have been properly categorized, processed, and compensated in a fair and equitable
manner by each Defendant.
13. A declaration by this Court will be useful in clarifying and settling the issues once
and for all. It will simultaneously provide relief to all parties going forward and avoid
uncertainty, insecurity, speculation and further controversy.
14. Because of the continuing harm these Plaintiffs have and will continue to suffer,
expeditious resolution of the issues will best serve the interests and justice and preserve their
rights to receive fair and adequate handling and compensation from the Manville Personal Injury
Settlement Trust and CRMC.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Trust
15. The Trust is an entity formed in November of 1988, in conjunction with the Order
Confirming Debtors’ Second Amended Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”), entered by this
Court on December 22, 1986, (the “Confirmation Order”), and several appeals thereafter.
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 4 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 5
16. Upon information and belief, the Trust is governed by the Second Amended and
Restated Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust Agreement, dated as of February 26, 2001
(the “Trust Agreement,” a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A).
17. Pursuant to decretal paragraph 28 of the Confirmation Order, this Court retained
jurisdiction to, inter alia, hear and determine any and all disputes arising out of the Plan, the
Trust and the Trust Agreement.
18. Section 6.13 of the Trust Agreement provides that this Court shall have
“exclusive jurisdiction to heart and resolve any and all matters relating to the powers and
authorities of the Trustees [under the Trust Agreement], any actions or omissions by them, the
operations or activities of the Trust and the interpretation of the Trust Agreement.”
19. The Trust’s purpose is, inter alia, to settle asbestos personal injury claims
resulting from exposure to asbestos-related products mined or manufactured by the Johns-
Manville Corporation and its affiliated entities, on a world-wide basis.
20. Another purpose of the Trust is also to insure that available claim resolution
assets are properly utilized, to insure that fair and just compensation is paid to those who may
have injury claims against the Manville entities for world-wide distribution of asbestos materials.
This would include fair, equal and just categorization and processing of all claims filed with the
Trust.
21. According to the history/mission statement presented by the Trust itself, it
…was created as an independent organization to distribute funds as
equitably as possible while balancing the rights of current
claimants against those of future, unknown Claimants. The Trust’s
mission is to ‘enhance and preserve the Trust estate’ in order to
‘deliver fair, adequate and equitable compensation to (Plaintiffs),
whether known or unknown.’ The Trust was established as a
negotiation based settlement organization pursuant to Plan
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 5 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 6
provisions which made it clear that Plaintiffs did not need to
litigate or threaten to litigate in order to negotiate a fair settlement.
22. The Trust operates through the CRMC, which is a wholly owned entity of the
Trust. It was established to provide processing services to various asbestos personal injury trusts,
communicate with counsel on behalf of the Trust, and be a leader in providing multiple other
services to those who are interested in asbestos claims, litigation, and history.
B. The Plaintiffs’ Claims
23. Each Plaintiff has filed a claim for asbestos-related disease or death suffered by
their respective Decedents due to occupational exposures to asbestos, while working within the
bowels of active American navy warships. Those exposures occurred both inside the territorial
waters of the United States and foreign nations. The American warships, on which Plaintiffs and
Decedents worked, were on active duty assignment throughout the world. Thus, they were
protecting and further serving the peace keeping and security interests of the United States on a
world-wide basis. They were being repaired, refurbished, maintained, serviced and outfitted at
various civilian and military shipyards located in England, Malta, and the United States.
24. The specific filed claims are as follows:
a. On or about June 2, 2011, Plaintiff John Sword filed Claim 139077 with the
CRMC. That claim asserts that Mr. Sword contracted malignant mesothelioma as
the direct and proximate result of occupational exposures to asbestos products,
while working as an insulator at, among other places, U.S. warships docked at
shipyards docked at HM Dockyard, Devonport in Plymouth, England. A copy of
Claim 139077 is annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
b. On or about May 19, 2011, Plaintiff John Tanti, as Personal Representative for the
Estate of Nicholas Borg, filed Claim 1388665 with the CRMC. That claim asserts
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 6 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 7
that Mr. Borg, a shipyard laborer in Malta who passed away in November 2010,
died of asbestosis; his disease and death each being caused as the direct and
proximate result of occupational exposures to asbestos products while working,
among other places, U.S. warships docked at HM Dockyard, Malta, (later named
Malta Drydocks). A copy of Claim 1388665, as amended as of January 30, 2011,
is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
c. On or about December 6, 2011, Plaintiff Joseph Balzan filed Claim 1143164 with
the CRMC. That claim asserts that Mr. Balzan died of malignant mesothelioma;
his disease and death each being caused as the direct and proximate result of
occupational exposures to asbestos products while working as a pipefitter,
steamfitter and plumber at, among other places, U.S. warships docked at HM
Dockyard, Malta (later named Malta Drydocks). A copy of Claim 1143164 is
annexed hereto as Exhibit D.
d. On or about August 19, 2011, Plaintiff Paraskevi Kastani, Personal
Representative for the Estate of Michael Kastanis filed Claim 1137420 with the
CRMC. That claim asserts that Mr. Kastanis died as a result of gastrointestinal
cancer, contracted as a result of occupational exposures to asbestos products while
working as a machinist on, among other places, active U.S. warships docked at
Boston Naval Shipyard, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the U.S.
Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Upon information and belief he also had
occupational levels of exposure to asbestos dust and fibers while taking training
courses in damage control, while stationed at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, in the
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 7 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 8
Commonwealth of Virginia. A copy of Claim 1137420 is annexed hereto as
Exhibit E.
25. Plaintiffs and Decedents were all occupationally exposed to asbestos dust and
fibers while performing an assigned work task, within the boiler rooms, engine rooms, and other
confined compartments of active United States naval warships.
26. The multiple occupational exposures of Plaintiffs and Decedents to asbestos dust
and fibers, on board these American warships – i.e., on U.S. territory – were a direct and
proximate cause of their respective diseases, injuries, death, and damages.
27. The 2002 Manville Trust Distribution Process (the “TDP,” a copy of which is
annexed hereto as Exhibit F) and the Foreign Claim Evaluation Process, which was approved by
the Trust on September 19, 2009 (the “FCEP,” a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit G),
both promulgated by the Trust as a mechanism for reviewing and classifying claims, require that
the Trust and the CRMC categorize and process the Plaintiffs’ claims as standard, non-foreign
claims, since they and their deceased family members were exposed to asbestos inside United
States territory.
28. Indeed, Section C.1(b) of the TDP contemplates classification of claims as “non-
standard” if the claimants’ asbestos exposure all took place outside the United States or Canada.
29. Notwithstanding the TDP’s mandate, both the Trust and the CRMC have
intentionally chosen to ignore their obligations to “deliver fair, adequate and equitable
compensation to [Plaintiffs], whether known or unknown,” and act in an equitable manner.
Instead the Trust and CRMC have classified and processed the claims of these Plaintiffs in a
discriminatory and legally incorrect manner, so as to avoid living up to its duties and obligations
under the TDP.
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 8 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 9
30. Indeed, although Section 1(b) of the FCEP requires the trust to ask the question:
“Did this exposure occur at a U.S. military installation, U.S. Embassy complex or on a U.S.
Military Ship?”, the FCEP blatantly discriminates against non-US citizen claimants who answer
that question in the affirmative. Specifically, if the claimant holds a United States social security
number, an affirmative answer to that question yields an automatic, standard U.S. classification,
regardless of whether that claimant was in fact also exposed to asbestos outside US territory.
FCEP Section 1(d)(1). For foreign nationals, however, the FCEP unfairly imposes a totality of
the circumstances test, a loophole that has been liberally employed by the Trust to deny proper
compensation to the Plaintiffs. FCEP Section 1(d)(2).
31. In the face of both domestic and international law to the contrary, let alone
common sense, the Trust and the CRMC have each taken the position that active naval warships
of the United States Navy, while being repaired, maintained, serviced, or refurbished at both
civilian and military shipyards of other nations and the United States, somehow lost their
sovereignty as territory of this country.
32. Defendants have even gone so far as to deny Plaintiff Kastani classification and
processing as a standard claim, despite her deceased husband having been occupationally
exposed to asbestos dust and fibers, on board active U.S. naval warships while he worked, within
the borders of the United States, at the Boston Naval Shipyard, Naval Base at Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, as well as during damage control training classes he attended at the U.S. Naval Base at
Norfolk, Virginia.
33. At the time Decedent Kastanis and other Greek nationals were occupationally
exposed to asbestos at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Pearl Harbor, while training and refitting
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 9 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 10
U.S. warships. Any legitimate and non-obstructive interpretation of such occupational exposures
to asbestos exposure would clearly place it within the territorial boundaries of the United States.
34. The Trust and the CRMC have previously classified and processed other foreign
workers, identically exposed to asbestos as these Plaintiffs and Decedents, at the identical
civilian and military shipyards, as standard claims filed by foreign nationals.
35. The Trust, through the CRMC, has actually classified, processed and paid other
foreign workers, identically exposed to asbestos as all Plaintiffs and Decedents herein, both
initial and supplemental compensation, to equalize them with standard claimants who were not
foreign nationals, but now has improperly refused to similarly classify and process the claims
made by Plaintiffs herein. (This paragraph is meant only to direct the attention of the Court to the
inconsistency and discrimination shown in this case, by both the Trust and CRMC, as to
classification and processing of their filed claims. Plaintiffs herein are not contesting any issues
related to valuation of their claims at this juncture).
36. The payments referred to in paragraph 34 above represented a clear recognition
by the Trust and the CRMC that those claims, although filed by foreign nationals who were
exposed at the identical shipyards and under the identical circumstances as Plaintiffs and
Decedents herein, were occupationally exposed to asbestos on board active American warships
being repaired and maintained in shipyards or naval bases in other countries.
37. No subsequent legitimate changes in the TDP or the law can justify the unilateral
decision by the Trust and CRMC to alter the status of persons, such as Plaintiffs herein, to justify
their being categorized and processed as foreign claimants.
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 10 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 11
38. The CRMC has advised counsel for these Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Trust, that it
refuses to categorize and process their claims as standard claims, despite the exposures involved
being identical in nature and scope as the foreign nationals discussed above.
COUNT I – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
39. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein with particularity.
40. The complete failure of the Trust and the CRMC to comply with the relevant
provisions of the TDP, regarding the definition of what constitutes a standard claim, the
unwarranted shift in treating these Plaintiffs in a different manner than those referred to above,
their disregard of the decisions of United States and international law provided to them, and their
incredulous decision to define the sites of exposure of Decedent Kastanis as being outside the
U.S., all abundantly demonstrate that the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are being
discriminated against based solely on their nationality; namely, that they are not U.S. citizens.
41. The misguided and improper efforts of the Trust and the CRMC to preserve assets
of the Trust for American and Canadian nationals is being done in blatant disregard for the rights
of these Plaintiffs.
42. This conduct follows other instances where the Trust has attempted to utilize
tactics, designed to either preclude or inhibit foreign nationals from filing as standard claimants.
(For example, until advised otherwise by its own legal counsel, the Trust previously required that
all standard claimants’ have a social security number when filing their claim. See Exhibits F and
G).
43. The response of the Trust and CRMC to Plaintiffs’ claims herein demonstrates an
incorrect classification of their claims as “foreign claims.” (i.e. based solely upon the national
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 11 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 12
origin of each Plaintiff and Decedent, rather than whether they were exposed to asbestos within
the United States at any time).
44. The improper classification and processing of these claims as “foreign claims,”
rather than standard claims filed by foreign nationals, has and will continue to result in an
inappropriate resolution process under the TDP of their claims and those filed by others
identically situated.
45. Such improper action by the Trust and the CRMC has and will continue to
discriminate and prejudice the rights and interests of Plaintiffs.
46. The question of what amount of compensation should be paid to Plaintiffs is an
issue yet to be addressed by the Trust or the CRMC. No claim is made herein against the
Defendants regarding the quantum of damages to which Plaintiffs believe they are entitled.
47. There is no other known provision within the TDP precluding Plaintiffs from
seeking direct relief from this Court for misclassification and improper processing of their claims
as foreign claims.
WHEREFORE, for all of the forgoing arguments and reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully
request that the Court enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs declaring that the plaintiffs’
claims be categorized and processed by the Defendants as standard claims, and not foreign
claims
COUNT II – REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in each of the
preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein with particularity.
49. In the absence of injunctive relief, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury for
which no adequate remedy at law exists.
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 12 of 13
{00133641.DOCX; 4} 13
50. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request an injunction (i) enjoining and restraining both the
Trust and CRMC from classifying Plaintiffs’ claims as non-standard or foreign claims and
(ii) ordering the Trust and CRMC to process Plaintiffs’ claims as standard claims in accordance
with the TDP.
WHEREFORE, for all of the forgoing arguments and reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully
request that the Court enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs enjoining the Defendants from
continuing the policy of classifying and processing the claims of the Plaintiffs, who were
exposed to asbestos dust and fibers on active duty American warships, as non-standard or foreign
claims in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 14, 2012
New York, New York
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL S. COHEN
/s/ Mitchell S. Cohen
Mitchell S. Cohen
612 Manor Road
Narberth, PA 19072
(Admitted to Practice in New York and the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New
York)
and
COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C.
Joseph M. Vann
Andrew L. Buck
420 Lexington Ave., Suite 2400
New York, NY 10170
Tel. No.: (212) 586-5800
Fax No.: (212) 586-5095
Co-Counsel for the Plaintiffs
12-01050-brl Doc 1 Filed 02/14/12 Entered 02/14/12 11:40:13 Main Document Pg 13 of 13
Recommended