476 BR 114
D. Del.2012Background
- Grace filed Chapter 11 in 2001; Frenville governed claim accrual pre-Grossman’s.
- Bar Date Order (2002) required PD claimants to file by March 31, 2003; AMH filed proofs later.
- Grossman’s (2010) overruled Frenville, holding claim arises at first pre-petition exposure creating right to payment.
- Wright (2012) extended Grossman’s to post-petition/pre-confirmation exposure for asbestos-related claims.
- This Court affirmed confirmation in 2012; AMH sought Rule 60(b) relief in 2012 arguing Wright changed the law.
- Rule 60(b) relief considered, but court denied due to finality interests and lack of extraordinary circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief is proper in appellate bankruptcy review | AMH argues Wright changes law post-confirmation warrant relief | Rule 60(b) not proper; appellate process and finality trump relief | Denied; Rule 60(b) not appropriate here |
| Whether subsections (5) or (6) of Rule 60(b) apply | Relief based on new law and changed public policy | No new “extraordinary circumstances”; no public-interest factor stay | Neither subsection supports relief |
| Whether Wright constitutes an extraordinary development justifying relief | Wright alters the definition of claim retroactively | Developments in the law are insufficient for extraordinary relief | Not extraordinary; relief denied |
| Whether AMH has standing to raise Wright-based due process concerns for unknown claimants | AMH asserts rights of others under Wright | Standing lacking; cannot assert rights of unknown claimants | Lacks standing; denial appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Grossman’s, Inc., 607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010) (claim arises when pre-petition exposure creates right to payment)
- Wright v. Owens Corning, 679 F.3d 101 (3d Cir. 2012) (extends Grossman’s to post-petition/pre-confirmation exposure)
- Horne v. Flores, 129 S. Ct. 2579 (Supreme Court 2009) (Rule 60(b)(5) weighs public interest; institutional reform context)
- In re Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., 280 B.R. 339 (D. Del. 2002) (finality policy favors swift reorganization)
- Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117 (3d Cir. 1985) (Rule 60(b) motion must be discretionary; prior remand guidance)
- Tri-Kell, Corp. v., 721 F.2d 904 (3d Cir. 1983) (certified exercises for motion to grant Rule 60(b) relief)