In Re Dow Corning Corporation
1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 10475, 37 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 1659, 113 F.3d 565 (1997)
Rule of Law:
A court of appeals may exercise mandamus jurisdiction to compel a district court to adhere to a prior remand order requiring individualized abstention determinations under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c), particularly when a global abstention decision constitutes clear error and poses a significant threat to the efficient administration of a debtor's bankruptcy estate.
Facts:
- Thousands of product liability claims were filed against Dow Corning, its shareholders (The Dow Chemical Company and Corning Incorporated), and other manufacturers of silicone products concerning silicone implants.
- Dow Corning, which manufactured and sold silicone products, filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code due to the threatened consequences of these claims.
- The Dow Chemical Company and Corning Incorporated are shareholders of Dow Corning and were named as co-defendants in the product liability suits, though they never manufactured silicone-implant products themselves.
- Claims against Dow Corning's shareholders are based on an identical set of facts as those against Dow Corning and are considered duplicates.
- Dow Corning and its shareholders share joint insurance coverage, where defense expenses for the shareholders' claims could significantly reduce the coverage available to Dow Corning.
- Nondebtor manufacturers (e.g., Baxter, 3M, Bristol-Myers, MEC) were also named as co-defendants with Dow Corning in some claims.
Procedural Posture:
- Dow Corning filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code due to numerous product liability claims.
- Dow Corning, joined by its shareholders, moved to transfer the claims pending against them to the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Other nondebtor manufacturers also moved to transfer claims in which they were named as co-defendants with Dow Corning.
- The district court granted Dow Corning's transfer motion but denied the motion concerning its shareholders and other nondebtor manufacturers on jurisdictional grounds.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's jurisdictional holding in In re Dow Corning Corp., 86 F.3d 482 (1996), affirming that the Eastern District of Michigan had 'related to' jurisdiction over claims against the debtor, its shareholders, and nondebtor defendants, and statutory authority to transfer cases against nondebtors.
- The Sixth Circuit remanded the case with instructions for the district court 'to determine in each individual case whether hearing it would promote or impair efficient and fair adjudication of bankruptcy cases' regarding abstention.
- Upon remand, the district court, without a hearing or analysis of any individual claim, globally abstained from the cases against Dow Corning's shareholders, exercising both discretionary and mandatory abstention, prompting the current appeal and petition for writ of mandamus.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court of appeals have jurisdiction to review, via writ of mandamus, a district court's decision to globally abstain from transferring related claims against a debtor's shareholders and co-defendants to the bankruptcy court's district, when the district court failed to conduct the individualized abstention analysis required by a previous appellate remand order?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyce F. Martin, Jr., Chief Judge
Yes, a court of appeals has jurisdiction to review, via writ of mandamus, a district court's decision to globally abstain from transferring related claims against a debtor's shareholders and co-defendants to the bankruptcy court's district, especially when the district court failed to conduct the individualized abstention analysis required by a previous appellate remand order. The Sixth Circuit found it possessed mandamus jurisdiction because 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d), which limits appellate review of abstention decisions, does not explicitly preclude review via mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, applying the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius'. The court deemed mandamus appropriate due to the case's 'unusual importance necessary to the economical and efficient administration of justice' given the significant risk to Dow Corning's estate. The district court's error was 'clearly apparent' as it made a 'blanket determination' to abstain without complying with the explicit instructions from the prior remand order to conduct a case-by-case review of each tort claim. The district court's application of mandatory abstention under § 1334(c)(2) was flawed because it failed to examine each case individually against the five required criteria, acknowledging that some cases clearly did not meet these requirements. Its exercise of discretionary abstention under § 1334(c)(1) was also deemed inappropriate, as transferring claims against Dow Corning while refusing to transfer those against its shareholders (whose claims are 'identical' and who did not manufacture implants) was impractical and expanded the litigation burden. The court also noted that the district court overlooked the previously articulated 'substantial risks to Dow Corning's estate,' such as cross-claims and shared insurance coverage, which would be exacerbated by separate litigation. The unique circumstances of the breast-implant litigation, affecting a nationwide class without a paramount interest in any single state, further negated the district court's reliance on principles of federalism and comity. The court concluded that transferring these claims to a single jurisdiction is the only way to ensure an efficient resolution, a successful reorganization, and adequate compensation for claimants.
Analysis:
This decision by the Sixth Circuit significantly clarifies the scope of appellate mandamus review in complex bankruptcy cases involving mass torts. It establishes that a district court's failure to adhere to specific remand instructions for individualized determinations, especially concerning abstention, constitutes clear error warranting mandamus. The case reinforces the judiciary's commitment to protecting a debtor's estate from unnecessary depletion by related litigation, balancing principles of federalism and comity against the efficient administration of justice in bankruptcy. Future cases will likely cite this ruling to compel lower courts to conduct diligent, case-specific analyses in large-scale, multi-jurisdictional disputes that impact bankruptcy reorganizations.
