PPG » Topics » Background of PC Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization

This excerpt taken from the PPG 10-Q filed Apr 27, 2009.

Background of PC Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh, Pa. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2000, PPG recorded an after-tax charge of $35 million for the write-off of all of its investment in PC. As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and various motions and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos litigation against PPG (as well as against PC) has been stayed and the filing of additional asbestos suits against them has been enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed plan of reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with the settlement arrangement among PPG and several other parties discussed below. The stay may be terminated if the Bankruptcy Court determines that such a plan will not be confirmed, or the settlement arrangement set forth below is not likely to be consummated.

On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with several other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future asbestos claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement arrangement relating to certain asbestos claims against PPG and PC (the “2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement”).

On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims against Corning and PC (the “2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement”).

The terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement were incorporated into a bankruptcy reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement were subsequently filed. On November 26, 2003, after considering objections to the second amended disclosure statement and plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving such disclosure statement and directing that it be sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. In March 2004, the second amended PC plan of reorganization (the “second amended PC plan of reorganization”) received the required votes to approve the plan with a channeling injunction for present and future asbestos claimants under §524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. After voting results for the second amended PC plan of reorganization were received, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement, including whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and whether the protection provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the asbestos settlement trust (the “Trust”) to be established as part of the second amended PC plan of reorganization. At that hearing, creditors and other parties in interest raised objections to the second amended PC plan of reorganization. Following that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled oral arguments for the contested items.

The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items on November 17-18, 2004. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court agreed to consider certain post-hearing written submissions. In a further development, on February 2, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule to address whether certain aspects of a decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case have any applicability to the PC plan of reorganization. Oral arguments on these matters were subsequently held in March 2005. During an omnibus hearing on February 28, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court judge stated that she was prepared to rule on the PC plan of reorganization in the near future, provided certain amendments were made to the plan. Those amendments were filed, as directed, on March 17, 2006. After further conferences and supplemental briefings, in December 2006, the court denied confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization, on the basis that the plan was too broad in the treatment of allegedly independent asbestos claims not associated with PC.

 

24


Table of Contents
These excerpts taken from the PPG 10-K filed Feb 19, 2009.

Background of PC Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh, Pa. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2000, PPG recorded an after-tax charge of $35 million for the write-off of all of its investment in PC. As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and various motions and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos litigation against PPG (as well as against PC) has been stayed and the filing of additional asbestos suits against them has been enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed plan of reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with the settlement arrangement among PPG and several other parties discussed below. The stay may be terminated if the Bankruptcy Court determines that such a plan will not be confirmed, or the settlement arrangement set forth below is not likely to be consummated.

 

On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with several other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future asbestos claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement arrangement relating to certain asbestos claims against PPG and PC (the “2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement”).

 

On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims against Corning and PC (the “2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement”).

 

The terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement were incorporated into a bankruptcy reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement were subsequently filed. On November 26, 2003, after considering objections to the second amended disclosure statement and plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving such disclosure statement and directing that it be sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. In March 2004, the second amended PC plan of reorganization (the “second amended PC plan of reorganization”) received the required votes to approve the plan with a channeling injunction for present and future asbestos claimants under §524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. After voting results for the second amended PC plan of reorganization were received, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement, including whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and whether the protection provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the asbestos settlement trust (the “Trust”) to be

 

2008 PPG ANNUAL REPORT AND FORM 10-K   55


Table of Contents

Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

 

established as part of the second amended PC plan of reorganization. At that hearing, creditors and other parties in interest raised objections to the second amended PC plan of reorganization. Following that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled oral arguments for the contested items.

 

The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items on November 17-18, 2004. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court agreed to consider certain post-hearing written submissions. In a further development, on February 2, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule to address whether certain aspects of a decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case have any applicability to the PC plan of reorganization. Oral arguments on these matters were subsequently held in March 2005. During an omnibus hearing on February 28, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court judge stated that she was prepared to rule on the PC plan of reorganization in the near future, provided certain amendments were made to the plan. Those amendments were filed, as directed, on March 17, 2006. After further conferences and supplemental briefings, in December 2006, the court denied confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization, on the basis that the plan was too broad in the treatment of allegedly independent asbestos claims not associated with PC.

 

Background of PC Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization

STYLE="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:3%">On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh, Pa.
Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2000, PPG recorded an after-tax charge of $35 million for the write-off of all of its investment in PC. As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and various motions
and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos litigation against PPG (as well as against PC) has been stayed and the filing of additional asbestos suits against them has been enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed plan of
reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with the settlement arrangement among PPG and several other parties discussed below. The stay may be terminated if the Bankruptcy Court determines that such a plan will not be confirmed, or the
settlement arrangement set forth below is not likely to be consummated.

 

FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="2">On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with several other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy, and the legal
representatives of future asbestos claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement arrangement relating to certain asbestos claims against PPG and PC (the “2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement”).

STYLE="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:-6px"> 

On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had separately
reached its own arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims against Corning and PC (the “2003 Corning Settlement Arrangement”).

STYLE="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:-6px"> 

The terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003 Corning
Settlement Arrangement were incorporated into a bankruptcy reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement
were subsequently filed. On November 26, 2003, after considering objections to the second amended disclosure statement and plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving such disclosure statement and directing that it be
sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. In March 2004, the second amended PC plan of reorganization (the “second amended PC plan of reorganization”) received the required votes to approve the plan with a channeling
injunction for present and future asbestos claimants under §524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. After voting results for the second amended PC plan of reorganization were received, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted a hearing regarding the
fairness of the settlement, including whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and whether the protection provided to PPG and its
participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the asbestos settlement trust (the “Trust”) to be

 













2008 PPG ANNUAL REPORT AND FORM 10-K 55






Table of Contents


Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements

STYLE="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px"> 


established as part of the second amended PC plan of reorganization. At that hearing, creditors and other parties in interest raised objections to the second
amended PC plan of reorganization. Following that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled oral arguments for the contested items.

 

STYLE="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:3%">The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items on November 17-18, 2004. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court agreed to
consider certain post-hearing written submissions. In a further development, on February 2, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule to address whether certain aspects of a decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in an
unrelated case have any applicability to the PC plan of reorganization. Oral arguments on these matters were subsequently held in March 2005. During an omnibus hearing on February 28, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court judge stated that she was prepared to
rule on the PC plan of reorganization in the near future, provided certain amendments were made to the plan. Those amendments were filed, as directed, on March 17, 2006. After further conferences and supplemental briefings, in December 2006, the
court denied confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization, on the basis that the plan was too broad in the treatment of allegedly independent asbestos claims not associated with PC.

STYLE="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:-6px"> 

This excerpt taken from the PPG 10-Q filed Oct 27, 2008.

Background of PC Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh, Pa. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2000, PPG recorded an after-tax charge of $35 million for the write-off of all of its investment in PC. As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and various motions and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos litigation against PPG (as well as against PC) has been stayed and the filing of additional asbestos suits against them has been enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed plan of reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with the settlement arrangement among PPG and several other parties discussed below. The stay may be terminated if the Bankruptcy Court determines that such a plan will not be confirmed, or the settlement arrangement set forth below is not likely to be consummated.

On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with several other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future asbestos claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement arrangement relating to asbestos claims against PPG and PC (the “PPG Settlement Arrangement”).

On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims against Corning and PC (the “Corning Settlement Arrangement”).

The terms of the PPG Settlement Arrangement and the Corning Settlement Arrangement were incorporated into a bankruptcy reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement were subsequently filed. On November 26, 2003, after considering objections to the second amended disclosure statement and plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving such disclosure statement and directing that it be sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. In March 2004, the second amended PC plan of reorganization received the required votes to approve the plan with a channeling injunction for present and future asbestos claimants under § 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. After voting results for the second amended plan were received, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement, including whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and whether the protection provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the asbestos settlement trust (the “Trust”) to be established as part of the plan. At that hearing, creditors and other parties in interest raised objections to the second amended PC plan of reorganization. Following that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled oral arguments for the contested items.

The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items on November 17-18, 2004. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court agreed to consider certain post-hearing written submissions. In a further development, on February 2, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule to address whether certain aspects of a decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case have any applicability to the PC plan of reorganization. Oral arguments on these matters were subsequently held in March 2005. During an omnibus hearing on February 28, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court judge stated that she was prepared to rule on the PC plan of reorganization in the near future, provided certain amendments were made to the plan. Those amendments were filed, as directed, on March 17, 2006. After further conferences and supplemental briefings, the Court heard oral arguments on July 21, 2006 during an omnibus hearing.

 

24


Table of Contents

On December 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling denying confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization, which incorporated the terms of the PPG Settlement Arrangement. Several parties in interest, including PPG, filed motions for reconsideration and/or to alter or amend the December 21, 2006 ruling. Oral argument on the motions was held on March 5, 2007, but no decision has been rendered by the Bankruptcy Court to date. The Bankruptcy Court may adhere to its December 21, 2006 decision, may alter that decision and confirm the plan or may amend the decision in a manner that may provide further guidance on how the plan could be modified and become confirmable in the Bankruptcy Court’s view. The PPG Settlement Arrangement will not become effective until 30 days after the PC plan of reorganization is finally approved by an appropriate court order that is no longer subject to appellate review (the “Effective Date”).

This excerpt taken from the PPG 10-Q filed Jul 28, 2008.

Background of PC Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh, Pa. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2000, PPG recorded an after-tax charge of $35 million for the write-off of all of its investment in PC. As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and various motions and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos litigation against PPG (as well as against PC) has been stayed and the filing of additional asbestos suits against them has been enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed plan of reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with the settlement arrangement among PPG and several other parties discussed below. The stay may be terminated if the Bankruptcy Court determines that such a plan will not be confirmed, or the settlement arrangement set forth below is not likely to be consummated.

On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with several other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future asbestos claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement arrangement relating to asbestos claims against PPG and PC (the “PPG Settlement Arrangement”).

On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims against Corning and PC (the “Corning Settlement Arrangement”).

The terms of the PPG Settlement Arrangement and the Corning Settlement Arrangement were incorporated into a bankruptcy reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement were subsequently filed. On November 26, 2003, after considering objections to the second amended disclosure statement and plan of reorganization,

 

22


Table of Contents

the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving such disclosure statement and directing that it be sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. In March 2004, the second amended PC plan of reorganization received the required votes to approve the plan with a channeling injunction for present and future asbestos claimants under § 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. After voting results for the second amended plan were received, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement, including whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and whether the protection provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the asbestos settlement trust (the “Trust”) to be established as part of the plan. At that hearing, creditors and other parties in interest raised objections to the second amended PC plan of reorganization. Following that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled oral arguments for the contested items.

The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items on November 17-18, 2004. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court agreed to consider certain post-hearing written submissions. In a further development, on February 2, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule to address whether certain aspects of a decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case have any applicability to the PC plan of reorganization. Oral arguments on these matters were subsequently held in March 2005. During an omnibus hearing on February 28, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court judge stated that she was prepared to rule on the PC plan of reorganization in the near future, provided certain amendments were made to the plan. Those amendments were filed, as directed, on March 17, 2006. After further conferences and supplemental briefings, the Court heard oral arguments on July 21, 2006 during an omnibus hearing.

On December 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling denying confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization, which incorporated the terms of the PPG Settlement Arrangement. Several parties in interest, including PPG, filed motions for reconsideration and/or to alter or amend the December 21, 2006 ruling. Oral argument on the motions was held on March 5, 2007, but no decision has been rendered by the Bankruptcy Court to date. The Bankruptcy Court may adhere to its December 21, 2006 decision, may alter that decision and confirm the plan or may amend the decision in a manner that may provide further guidance on how the plan could be modified and become confirmable in the Bankruptcy Court’s view. The PPG Settlement Arrangement will not become effective until 30 days after the PC plan of reorganization is finally approved by an appropriate court order that is no longer subject to appellate review (the “Effective Date”).

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki