In Re A.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor. (eight Cases.)rosemary Menard-sanford; Karen Valenzuela; Constancemiller Engelsberg; Nancy Lauri Adams; Carolynharris, Claimants-appellants, v. Ralph R. Mabey; the Official Committee of Equity Securityholders; the Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.h.robins Company, Incorporated; Stanley K. Joynes, Iii, Legalrepresentative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.h. Robinscompany, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest,a.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee.donna Oberg, et al., Claimants-appellants, v. the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; Theofficial Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.h. Robinscompany, Incorporated; Stanley K. Joynes, Iii, Legalrepresentative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.h. Robinscompany, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest,a.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee.albert L. Sivley, Claimant-appellant, v. the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; Theofficial Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.h. Robinscompany, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes,iii, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants Ofa.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest,a.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee.diana Brosco; Catherine Crawford; Mary Fischer, et al.,claimants-appellants, v. the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; Theofficial Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.h. Robinscompany, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes,iii, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants Ofa.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest,a.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee.lynn Scott; Carol Lopez, et al., Claimants-appellants, v. the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; Theofficial Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.h. Robinscompany, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes,iii, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants Ofa.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest,a.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee.elaine Cumley; Laura Jones; Jean Abad, et al., Claimants-appellants, v. the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; Theofficial Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.h. Robinscompany, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes,iii, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants Ofa.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest,a.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee.alexia Anderson, et al., Claimant-appellant, v. Stanley K. Joynes, Iii, Legal Representative of the Futuretort Claimants of A.h. Robins Company, Incorporated; Theofficial Committee of Equity Security Holders; the Officialunsecured Creditors Committee of A.h. Robins Company,incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey, Parties-in-interest,a.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee.alexia Anderson, et al., Claimant-appellant, v. the Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.h. Robinscompany, Incorporated; the Official Committee of Equitysecurity Holders; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes, Iii,legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.h.robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest,a.h. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-appellee, 880 F.2d 694 (4th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 880 F.2d 694 (4th Cir. 1989) Argued Dec. 6, 1988. Decided June 16, 1989

Alan B. Morrison (Linda Donaldson, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C., on brief), for claimants-appellants.

James Crawford Roberts (James S. Crockett, Jr., Mays & Valentine, Richmond, Va., Dennis J. Drebsky, Alesia Ranney-Marinelli, Kirk C. Loos, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City, Ralph D. Pittle, Medical Legal Consultants of Washington, Seattle, Wash., John T. Baker, Bragg & Dubofsky, Denver, Colo., Joseph McDowell, Ill, Cullity, Kelley & McDowell, Manchester, N.H., W. Bradley Post, Post, Syrios & Bradshaw, Wichita, Kan., Frederic A. Bremseth, Doshan, Lord & Bremseth, Wayzata, Minn., Murray Drabkin, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Washington, D.C., Harold S. Novikoff, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York City, Henri E. Norris, Stanley K. Joynes, III, Rilee, Cantor, Arkema & Edmonds, Richmond, Va., Robert M. Miller, Berlack, Israels & Liberman, New York City, John S. Kinzey, Jr., Steven J. McCardell, Leboeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MaCrae, Salt Lake City, Utah, on brief), for debtor-appellee.

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.

WIDENER, Circuit Judge:


On July 26, 1988, the bankruptcy court and the district court jointly confirmed the "Sixth Amended and Restated Plan of Reorganization" (the Plan) submitted by A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (Robins). In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 88 B.R. 742 (E.D. Va. 1988). Rosemary Menard-Sanford and certain other personal injury claimants, who voted against the Plan, appeal. They challenge the district court's approval of the disclosure statement, the district court's use of a one claimant one vote voting procedure, the district court's feasibility finding, and a certain injunction found in the Plan. We affirm.

On August 21, 1985, Robins filed a petition for reorganization relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. For an explanation of the details surrounding Robins' bankruptcy and some of the resulting litigation, see the district court's opinion in In Re A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 88 B.R. 742 (E.D. Va. 1988), and our other published opinions regarding this bankruptcy.1 

On April 1, 1988, the district court approved the "Sixth Amended and Restated Disclosure Statement". The appellants argue that the disclosure statement does not contain adequate information. 11 U.S.C. § 1125(b) requires that before solicitation of approval or disagreement of a plan of reorganization the disclosure statement must contain "adequate information" and be approved by the court. 11 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1) defines "adequate information" as "information of a kind, and in sufficient detail, as far as is reasonably practicable in light of the nature and history of the debtor and the condition of the debtor's books and records, that would enable a hypothetical reasonable investor typical of holders of claims or interests of the relevant class to make an informed judgment about the plan." The determination of whether the disclosure statement has adequate information is made on a case by case basis and is largely within the discretion of the bankruptcy court. In the Matter of Texas Extrusion Corp., 844 F.2d 1142, 1157 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S. Ct. 311, 102 L. Ed. 2d 330 (1988). The challenged disclosure statement began its 261 pages of information with a thorough summary of the complex plan in terms that almost anyone could understand. It explained, among much more, the amount to be put into trust and made available for the payment of claims, the various estimates of how much money was required, a warning that the funds furnished to pay the estimates might not be enough to pay all claims in full, the sources of funding, an explanation of the various funding provisions which depended on the outcome of various appeals, how claims would be handled, the four options for processing claims and the background of the case. The disclosure statement continued with a discussion of the Robins company, the Dalkon Shield, various litigation regarding the Dalkon Shield, the reorganization, the proposed merger with American Home Products Corporation (AHP), the historical stock values of both AHP and Robins, and federal income tax consequences. The final part of the disclosure statement contains actual copies of the Plan, the Claimants Trust Agreement, the Other Claimants Trust Agreement, the Claims Resolution Facility, the Merger Agreement, Aetna's additional insurance policy, AHP's Annual Report, the Liquidation Analysis and biographies of the proposed Trustees.

The appellants contend that the disclosure statement is misleading because it contains a statement that in order to approve the Plan the district court must make a finding that the Plan contains enough money to satisfy all claims in full. They point out that in reality there may not be enough money to cover all claims. The disclosure statement, however, makes that clear to the claimants. It states that "if the Court's estimate turns out to be too low, Robins will not have to make any more money available to pay claims. In addition, the Plan would generally take away your right to recover for Dalkon Shield injuries against any other parties." The disclosure statement later repeats that thought in explicit terms: " [e]stimation is not an exact science. The money available to pay Dalkon Shield claims may prove to be more or less than the actual value of such claims. If the estimation decision underestimated the value of the claims, there may not be enough money for the Claimants Trust to pay all claims in full." Thus, we think appellants' contention is without merit.

The appellants' principal challenge to the disclosure statement, however, is that it is inadequate because it does not contain ranges of recovery for claimants with specified injuries. The disclosure statement notes that " [t]here is no certain way to predict the amount that you could receive under option 3. Each claim is different. Factors that affect the value of a claim include the nature of the injury, the medical evidence available to prove the injury, the medical evidence to prove Dalkon Shield use, the presence of other causes of your injury, how long ago you were injured, and what steps you took to enforce your legal rights after your injury became apparent." There is no requirement in case law or statute that a disclosure statement estimate the value of specific unliquidated tort claims. In fact, with so many various unliquidated personal injury claims which vary so much in the extent and nature of injury, medical evidence and causation factors, any specific estimates may well have been more confusing than helpful and certainly would be more calculated to mislead. Given the quantity and quality of the information in the disclosure statement we can not say that the district court abused its discretion in finding that it contained "adequate information."

The appellants next challenge the legality of the voting procedure used to confirm the Plan. The difficulty surrounding the voting procedure resulted from the 195,000 unliquidated claims for personal injuries (Dalkon Shield Claims). The controlling legal provisions for the reorganization include 11 U.S.C. § 1126(a) which provides that a "holder of a claim or interest allowed under section 502 of this title" is entitled to vote on the acceptance of a plan. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a) provides that a claim filed "is deemed allowed unless a party in interest" objects. Robins objected to all the Dalkon Shield Claims. B.R. 3018(a) provides that " [n]otwithstanding objection to a claim or interest, the court after notice and hearing may temporarily allow the claim or interest in an amount which the court deems proper for the purpose of accepting or rejecting a plan." The district court, after notice and a hearing, ordered that, for purposes of voting, each Dalkon Shield Claim was estimated and allowed to be equal. It found, fully supported by the record, that any attempt to evaluate each of the 195,000 individual claims for voting purposes would cause intolerable delay. The challenge to the voting procedure relies on 11 U.S.C. § 1126(c) which requires that for a plan to be approved by a class the creditors "that hold at least two-thirds in amount and more than one-half in number" accept the plan. The argument is that Sec. 1126(c) requires use of a weighted voting method which estimates the value of the claims and gives larger claims more votes.

We do not decide whether the district court's voting procedure violated Sec. 1126(c) because, in view of the outcome of the vote, the challenged procedure was at most harmless error. 139,605 claimants voted. Of that 131,761 (94.38%) voted in favor of the Plan. In Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp., 843 F.2d 636, 641-647 (2d Cir. 1988),2  the district court, faced with 52,440 unliquidated personal injury claims, assigned each claim the value of one dollar for voting purposes. 95.8% of those claims voted to approve the plan. The Second Circuit in reviewing the decision did not decide whether the equal voting plan was error and decided instead that the alleged irregularities were at most harmless error. Given that 94.38% of the Dalkon Shield Claimants voted for the Plan, we hold that, at most, harmless error was committed.3 

Appellants' next point on appeal is that the district court erred in finding that the Plan complied with 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a) (7) (A) (ii) which requires that an impaired class of claims such as the Dalkon Shield claimants must "receive ... under the Plan ... property of a value ... that is not less than the amount that ... [they would] receive ... if the debtor were liquidated under Chapter 7" and Sec. 1129(a) (11) which requires that confirmation is not likely to be followed by liquidation or the need for further reorganization. This latter is called the feasibility requirement.

Both such complaints are based on the "same source: the failure of the district court to break out the components of the $2.475 billion figure." The argument is that since the figure was not broken down, if it turned out to be too low, then the Plan would not be feasible because it could not pay all the claimants in full, which, as the appellants note, is an assumption of the Plan and the disclosure statement. The appellants thus complain about the same fact again, except in slightly different context. In all events, we think there is no merit to the claim, but that the care the district court took in arriving at its estimate deserves mention.

The challenged findings are based on an estimation process that the district court undertook as a result of our decision in A.H. Robins Co., Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 1013 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 876, 107 S. Ct. 251, 93 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1986). In Piccinin, we stated that due to the large number of unliquidated claims that if each claim was tried the process itself "would likely consume all the assets of the debtor." Id. We suggested that the bankruptcy court "arrive at a fair estimation of the value of all the claims." Id. To assist in the estimation process, the district court appointed Professor Francis E. McGovern, who was familiar with such matters, as the court's expert to develop a data base regarding Dalkon Shield Claims. The Dalkon Shield Claimant's Committee, the Unsecured Creditor's Committee, the Future Claimant's Representative, the Equity Security Holder's Committee, Robins and Aetna all had experts to assist Professor McGovern. The data base included the results of a two page "Dalkon Shield Questionnaire and Claim Form" from more than 195,000 claimants. It also contained roughly 6,000 responses to a fifty page, "McGovern Survey Questionnaire" and medical records from a random sample of 7,500 claimants. The data collection process lasted more than a year and a half. Each of the experts hired by the various parties used the basic data in various ways to arrive at an estimation.

The district court conducted an estimation hearing from November 5, 1987 to November 11, 1987. At the hearing the parties' various experts testified. The district court considered that the testimony of the various experts estimated the claims as follows: Robins'--.8 to 1.3 billion, Equity Security Holders'--1.03 billion, Unsecured Creditors'--1.54 billion, Aetna's'--2.2 to 2.5 billion, and the Dalkon Shield Claimants'--4.2 to 7 billion. The district court decided that the proper estimate was 2.475 billion.4 

At this point it is well to relate somewhat more fully the procedure used in arriving at the estimate found by the district court. As the district court noted, the testimony as to the estimated recovery value of the Dalkon Shield claims ranged from 600 million to 7 billion dollars. The testimony with respect to the 7 billion dollar figure, however, was not credited by the court.

Professor McGovern was assisted by the experts mentioned representing each of the interests involved in this case, and the procedural steps which were taken were all done by consensus among the experts representing all of the interests, so that the conclusions which the various experts drew from the evidence or the findings of the court from the evidence were the only things left open to exception.

As has been previously mentioned from time to time in the reports of these cases, the district court entered a bar date on claims and prescribed a very informal method of advising the court that a claim was being filed. The bar date of course limited the potential claimants. From these potential claimants, there were eliminated, by standard statistical and analytical methods, about one-third of the initial claims which had been filed. A detailed analysis of those claims not eliminated was performed by sending the detailed questionnaire previously mentioned to a randomly selected sample of several thousand of the claims remaining. The questionnaire asked for information, which, in the most general sense, was received back, concerning the insertion of the Dalkon Shield in the claimant and the nature of the claimant's injuries, including verification by way of medical records where possible.

A detailed analysis of all of the responses was then performed by the expert witnesses who testified in the case. A good example of competent testimony was that of Dr. Francine F. Rabinovitz, who testified on behalf of Aetna. We illustrate with her testimony because her conclusions more nearly match the conclusions of the district court than any other single witness offered. She took the returned questionnaires as a representative sample and weeded out those, for example, with no medical proof of use of the Dalkon Shield. As a further example, she classified the claims into those with and without complications and the nature of the injuries claimed. She took a further random sample of the claims as she had divided them up and got three Aetna claims adjusters who had been experienced in the actual adjustment of Dalkon Shield claims and instructed those adjusters to set a value on a sample of the claims she referred to them, considering that there was liability, so the only thing the adjusters had to consider in setting a value on a claim was the nature of the injury and of course the proof required and the attendant expenses. The adjusters were instructed not to place a low estimate on the claims. Dr. Rabinovitz, by using this method, drew the conclusion that the compensation necessary, assuming that documentation that use of the Dalkon Shield were a prerequisite, would be in excess of 1.9 billion dollars, and, assuming that documentation would not be a prerequisite, a sum in excess of 2.4 billion dollars. To these sums, she would have added modest payments to all active claimants, whatever the merit of such claims, and 50 million dollars as a reserve against future injuries, which made her figures for documented injuries at slightly more than 2.0 billion dollars and for undocumented injuries slightly more than 2.5 billion dollars. Dr. Rabinovitz further concluded that she thought there might be a considerable reduction from disallowance of claims and that she would reasonably anticipate the total indemnity of the obligation to be 2.2 to 2.3 billion dollars. That some reduction is not unreasonable is illustrated by a remark we have come across in the record that one claimant apparently said she took two Dalkon Shields a day.

From our brief recital of a small part of the evidence before the district court, we see that its finding of 2.475 billion dollars as the estimate to include all Dalkon Shield claims is not clearly erroneous under Rule 8013. Indeed, we think the district court would have been quite justified in accepting Dr. Rabinovitz' testimony, so appellants may not complain about the district court's arrival at a somewhat higher figure.

Finally, the appellants challenge as without the power of the bankruptcy court the portion of the Plan which requires the injunction of suits that have connection to the Dalkon Shield, against certain entities other than Robins. Robins argues that the injunction is a proper exercise of the district court's power to channel claims to a specific res or alternately that the injunction is proper because 94.38% of the claimants voted for the Plan and thereby consented to the injunction. We affirm, but our reasoning differs somewhat from that of Robins, although its position, of course, should enter into consideration. The suits in question which some of the appellants wish to bring are against Robins' directors, Robins' and Aetna's attorneys, and Aetna, seeking to hold them as joint tortfeasors with Robins for Dalkon Shield injuries.

We begin our discussion by considering the impact of our decision in In Re: A.H. Robins Company Inc., 88-1755(L) (Breland settlement), decided this date, on this challenge to the Plan's injunction. In Breland, we affirmed the district court's certification of a mandatory non-opt-out class for members of class A and a class which allows an opt-out for compensatory damages for members of class B. Class A is defined as those Dalkon Shield claimants who met the filing deadlines of the district court and therefore have a non-subordinated claim against the trust fund set up for the claimants in the Robins' reorganization. Class B is defined as those Dalkon Shield claimants who did not meet the filing deadline or like procedural requirements and are therefore not eligible for a non-subordinated recovery from the trust fund for reasons not related to the abstract merits of the claims. The Breland settlement, however, provided all class B claimants with a second chance to pursue their Dalkon Shield claims by staying in the class and applying to the Claims Resolution Facility.5  For class B members the merits of their Dalkon Shield claims would be determined in the same method as is in place to determine class A members' claims except they would have no right to a jury trial. Their claims would be paid by the two Outlier policies issued by Aetna which provide for $100,000,000 to pay such claims.6  No party challenges the adequacy of the Outlier policies to pay the class B claims. We therefore are entitled to and do assume that the claims of all class B claimants who wish to have the merits and amount of their claims ascertained by the Claims Resolution Facility will be fully satisfied. However, the Breland settlement, in conjunction with the Plan, did not force the class B claimants who chose to opt-out to stay within the settlement. They could elect to forgo the benefits of the settlement and retain their right to sue Aetna and to sue medical providers for malpractice.7  In Breland, we also approved the class action settlement, which expressly bars the members of class A and the members of class B who did not opt-out from further prosecuting their Dalkon Shield claims other than pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Given this bar from pursuing compensation for their Dalkon Shield injuries, other than pursuant to the order, the injunction complained of has no real effect on the rights of members of class A and the members of class B who have not exercised their right to opt-out.

The Plan's injunction, therefore, only has real impact upon members of Class B who have elected to opt-out of the Breland settlement. The injunction under sections 1.85 and 8.04 of the Plan prevents these claimants from suing all third parties other than "insurer [s]" (which includes Aetna) and claims based exclusively on medical malpractice. The class B members who have elected to opt-out, it is remembered, claim to have causes of action as joint tortfeasors with Robins against Robins' directors, Aetna, and law firms who represented both Robins and Aetna. A suit against any of the parties mentioned by the class B opt-out members would affect the bankruptcy reorganization in one way or another such as by way of indemnity or contribution. See A.H. Robins Co. Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 876, 107 S. Ct. 251, 93 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1986). And, in all events, provision for payment in full of all class B claimants has been made.

Bankruptcy courts are courts of equity. See NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 527, 104 S. Ct. 1188, 1196, 79 L. Ed. 2d 482 (1984). 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) gives a bankruptcy court the power to issue "any order, process or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title," and confers equitable powers upon the bankruptcy courts. In Matter of Old Orchard Inv. Co., 31 B.R. 599 (W.D. Mich. 1983). Given the impact of the proposed suits on the bankruptcy reorganization and the fact that the class B members who chose to opt-out could have had their claims fully satisfied by staying within the settlement, the bankruptcy court's equitable powers support the questioned injunction. We think the ancient but very much alive doctrine of marshalling of assets is analogous here. A creditor has no right to choose which of two funds will pay his claim. The bankruptcy court has the power to order a creditor who has two funds to satisfy his debt to resort to the fund that will not defeat other creditors. Columbia Bank for Cooperatives v. Lee, 368 F.2d 934, 939 (4th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 992, 87 S. Ct. 1308, 18 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1967); IV Minor's Institutes 1248 (1883). Here, the carefully designed reorganization of Robins, in conjunction with the settlement in Breland, provided for satisfaction of the class B claimants. However, some chose to opt-out of the settlement in order to pursue recovery for their injuries from Aetna or from medical providers for malpractice. It is essential to the reorganization that these opt-out plaintiffs either resort to the source of funds provided for them in the Plan and Breland settlement or not be permitted to interfere with the reorganization and thus with all the other creditors. Since they have chosen opt-out rather than payment in full, they may have no complaint about a restriction placed on their ability to sue others. Permitting a suit by them in violation of the Plan is a defeat of the Plan and a resulting defeat of the other creditors. "Particularly since the insurance settlement/injunction arrangement was essential in this case to a workable reorganization, it falls within the bankruptcy court's equitable powers 'which traditionally have been invoked to the end that ... substance will not give way to form, that technical considerations will not prevent substantial justice." MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 837 F.2d 89, 94 (2nd Cir. 1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S. Ct. 176, 102 L. Ed. 2d 145 (1988), quoting In re U.N.R. Industries, Inc., 725 F.2d 1111, 1119 (7th Cir. 1984).

The appellants finally contend that 11 U.S.C. § 524(e) prohibits the injunction. Section 524(e) states that " [e]xcept as provided in subsection (a) (3) of this section,8  discharge of a debt of the debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity on, or the property of any other entity for, such debt." Some courts have held that Sec. 524(e) and its predecessor, Sec. 16 of the 1898 Bankruptcy Act, results in the bankruptcy court having no power to discharge liabilities of a nondebtor pursuant to the consent of creditors as a part of a reorganization plan. See Underhill v. Royal, 769 F.2d 1426, 1432 (9th Cir. 1985); Union Carbide Corp. v. Newboles, 686 F.2d 593 (7th Cir. 1982). However, the Fifth Circuit has stated that " [a]lthough section 524 has generally been interpreted to preclude release of guarantors by a bankruptcy court, the statute does not by its specific words preclude the discharge of a guaranty when it has been accepted and confirmed as an integral part of reorganization." Republic Supply Co. v. Shoaf, 815 F.2d 1046, 1050 (5th Cir. 1987).9 

We find the language used by the Fifth Circuit persuasive. Whatever the result might be as to the application of Sec. 524(e) in other cases, we do not think that section must be literally applied in every case as a prohibition on the power of the bankruptcy courts, as appellants would have us apply it here. In this situation where the Plan was overwhelmingly approved, where the Plan in conjunction with insurance policies provided as a part of a plan of reorganization gives a second chance for even late claimants to recover where, nevertheless, some have chosen not to take part in the settlement in order to retain rights to sue certain other parties, and where the entire reorganization hinges on the debtor being free from indirect claims such as suits against parties who would have indemnity or contribution claims against the debtor, we do not construe Sec. 524(e) so that it limits the equitable power of the bankruptcy court to enjoin the questioned suits. We leave questions concerning cases in which Sec. 524(e) does apply for another day.

The orders of the district court appealed from are accordingly

AFFIRMED.

 *ADDENDUM APPEAL NUMBER APPELLANT DALKON SHIELD NUMBER 881750 Rosemary MenardSanford 82114 Karen Velenzuela 82207 Constance Miller Engelsberg 82142 Nancy Lauri Adams 82174 Carolyn Harris 303631 881754 Mary Albert 252684 Carol Angus 215751 Judith Beaule 62242 Janis Belcher 237565 Daniel Belcher 237566 Karen Belcher 237564 David Belcher 243035 Melanie Bennett 183837 Nancy Benson 191191 Jean Boeckler 122207 John Boeckler 122208 Janet Bruce 296254 Melody Cannon 228522 Barbara L. Carr 20475 David W. Carr 244903 Helen Carty 78400 Sandra Cassier 7647 Patrick Cassier 7646 Victoria Charnock 228521 Ellen Chodes 42705 Elizabeth Cote 26935 Brenda Davis 111886 Marion DuFord 78493 Deborah Fallon 80309 John Fallon 80310 Dawn Gebo 7306 Janet Gregory 79226 Frank Gregory 79225 Sarah E. Haskell 78399 Pamela Hockenhull 78909 Patricia Johnson 78581 Mary E. Jordan 291790 April WeeksKorn 78397 Leonard Korn 78398 Debora Lamont 96144 Beverly McClure 80313 Katherine Maher 19424 Elaine Nizza 228523 Donna Oberg 77966 Diane Pinard 7113 Jeanne Robey 237567 Paul Robey 237568 Pamela Saxby 78580 Shellie Shapiro 78583 Howard Shapiro 78582 Sharon Lee Spern 187651 Rebecca Steinbach 281041 Jeannette Sweet 85890 Beverly Tonkin 184469 Donna Tshanakas 222583 Nicholas Tshanakas 222584 Daphne Whitmore 78910 Linda Bisson 172492 Anne Soucy 286513 Sally Adams 225908 Randy Adams 225886 Charlotte Allen 227324 Charles Allen 225896 Jan Allen 225897 Barbara Bill Klinger 225899 Linda Brust 225323 Virginia Bryan Roberts 225901 Gwendolyn E. Buettner 70274 Carolyn Campbell 225900 Lynn Crosby 225902 William Franklin Crosby 233041 Mary Kathryn Deemer 235677 John Deemer 225885 Donna Faremouth 260787 Charles Faremouth 260788 Cindy Franco 225884 Fred Franco 231644 Elena Friedman 225893 Darleene L. Frink 226609 Kenneth Frink 225964 Diane Goshorn 113174 Christiane J. Guignard 219368 Linda Harre 225883 William Harre 225894 June Ellen Harris 225895 Carol Harterink 225903 Anton Harterink 225904 Rosanne Heard 225905 Jimmie Dale Heard 225906 Atha Henderson 225907 Jill Campion Huff 233339 Pamela Johnson 7353 Ted Johnson 7356 Wanda Lancaster 6020 Deborah Jean Lenzi 225485 Betty Leobold 225486 William D. Leobold 235694 Susan Lippner 225890 Robert Lippner 225889 Victoria L. McCord 225888 Cheryl McFarland 192508 Dayna McKendree 225887 Diane Mance Zywotko 225892 Carol Mitchell 225891 Susan Nehrig Cole 46096 Paul Nehrig 46097 Deloris A. Nicolaou 255933 Sherry Peavy 225322 Kenneth Peavy 225488 Flora Poe 109594 Brenda Reilly 225489 Gerald Reilly 225490 Patricia Scolaro 225491 Edward Scolaro 235693 Wanda Joe Selvanik 225492 Michael Selvanik 225487 Janice Denise Simmons 7355 Merrick Simmons 7354 Martha E. Sims 225483 Eslyn South 189220 Tracy Staneart 176376 Debra Renee Thompson 225321 Denise B. Wax 225946 Dan Wax 234731 Rachael O. Thompson 200369 Edwin L. Wilbur 202442 Sharon Malloy Wilber 201016 Harold E. Kerkhoff, Jr. 200370 Robert F. Grant, Deceased 200373 Robert W. Adams 200368 Gillian L. Adams 200367 Mr. R.S. Shaw 285422 Blanche M. Shaw 202439 Donna M. Kerkhoff 200375 Kathleen A. Denise 62658 Jim H. James 200366
 Beatrice D. Sewell 200374 Kenneth R. Livingston 200883 Gloria W. Livingston 200372 Harvey H. Friedman 200371 Arlene Whitaker James 200365 Phyllis B. Puckett 225059 Rhalda S. Friedman 202440 Joyce F. Grant 202441 Barbara A. Purvis 202438 881756 Albert Sivley 156549 881758 Louise Anderson 40014 Jan Beck 40021 Mary Jo Bennett 97533 Sandra Bescheinen 314579 Patricia Bonn 40029 Diane Brosco 40038 Karla Clark 866239 Catherine Crawford 40065 Silvia Crockett 40066 Dee Dahl 269915 Katheryn Duryea 192464 Mickie Engel 179358 Mary Fischer 40095 Arlene Ford (Robinson) 100767 Sandra Fritz 33463 Susan Geisler 236132 Nancy Gossan 275731 Constance Halverson 64890 Lois Hansel 15085 Rachel Jones 183223 Lisa Kerr 66317 Rosemary Lambert 174880 Nora Manning 40169 Carolie Martin 40172 Lee McDaniel 40183 Eleanor Meyer 236151 Rosemary Nelson 66584 Charlotte Pool 66605 Faye Schultz 14448 Sharon Scott 269922 Ginger Shirley 66666 Yvonne Spicer 67003 Lyndalou Steckler 66566 Shelly Stisser 66682 Carole Torres 66478 Suzanne Walfoort 304062 Mary Ann Watrous Diane Zapata 153920 881759 Lynn Scott Carol Lopez 881760 Elaine Cumley 207022 Jean Abad 268523 Eileen Ackerman 82175 Linda Adamecz 232928 Donna Albright 268416 Christine Alfaros 82173 Cathy Allen 82172 Paulette Allen 269145 Scott Allen 268521 Nancy Alotis 269161 Diane Anderson 268414 Susan Anderson 82171 Douglas Anderson 268519 Anne Angelou 82170 Dimitris Angelou 268516 Cynthia Apple 275727 Ann Frances Aspon 82243 Beverly Annette Back 203008 Deborah Barbour Eaton 82235 Beret Barnes 82169 Dixie Barnes 203011 Beverly BartleyMustin 82168 Jane Beedle 82167 Kathy Bennett 275752 Edith (Deedi) Berde 275753 Janice Berg 268481 Hanna Berkow 87077 Birohnie Blair Dowdell 202946 Sandra Bliven Budd 82166 Jennell Boote 82165 Stessi Boyd 275736 Jean Brewer 82164 Geraldine Broeffle 82163 Carolyn Brown 107919 Marguerite Bryson 203023 Sandra Bucsit 268413 Veronica BurnsPeterson 82162 Norma Cabrera Reid 82161 Sylvia Cameron 82153 Chris Campbell 203020 Cynthia Campbell 269162 Linda Carlsen 203010 Jennifer Cheney 268475 Judy Clark 82154 Karen Clement 268518 Karl Clement 268509 Myra Cole 82155 Kathy Collin 32966 Arthur Collin 268503 Patricia Conley 82156 Bonnie Cook 203019 Sheryl Cooper 202980 Dawn Covell 82210 Dianna Crabb 82143 Karen Crenshaw George 82144 Michael Crenshaw 268506 Linda Croskey 82146 Kenneth Croskey, Sr. 268501 Judith Danforth 269148 Adis Daniels 271762 Monica Davis 233127 Becky Deeter 202989 Maureen DeGaetano 91499 Diane DeRooy 82148 Christina DeWeese 82236 Mary Ann Dizon Lancaster 203018 Catherine D. Tomlinson 202979 Janet Dowling 82149 Larry Dowty Lorraine Dressel 203017 Susan Duram 268471 Susan Jane Durham 82139 Leolynn DuVal 202982 Christine Eager Leback 82140 Cathi Eicher 203033 Charlene Eitelberg 275737 Monica Ellis 82141 James Ellis 268498 Danelia Fanello 82135 Phyllis Fernandes 203039 Edward Fernandes 268496 Gloria Fields 120488 Margaret Fithen 203012 Cleo Fitzgerald 82132 Gregory Fitzgerald 268494 Marcia Fletcher 35024 Julia Foss 268410 Judith Fowe 82134 Robert Fowe 268446 Patricia Fox 268513 Ronald Fox 268530 Juanita Francis 82237 Don Francis 268492 Jackie Franck 229230 Delilia Frank 82136 Marie Gallegos 82137 Pamela Garrett 268511 Mary Jane Gassert 82138 Rhonda Gateman Herman 268510 Linda Gause 82121 Kathryn Gillette 202985 Catherine Gitchell 82123 Louis Gitchell, Jr. 268491 Christine Gitchell 200563 Cathy Reiner Godwin 82122 Cliff Godwin 268488 Pamela Goldader 269147 Judith Grafing 82124 Richard Grafing 268487 Alice Grimes 82125 Mary Grubb 268463 Tamara Guslander 82126 Charles Guslander 268483 Carol Hawkins 268461 Ruby Haywood 82127 Christen Hearn 82128 Melvin Hearn 268482 Eloise Hebert 268508 Christine Henshaw 82129 Gail Hertzler Buehler 203022 George Buehler 268515 Pam Heselgrave 199804 Karin Hoffman 276494 Gayle Holm 202995 Joanne Huffman 268507 David Huffman 268480 David Huffman 200543 Lori Inglis 151878 Rose Anne Jacobs 4556 Rhonda Jared 82130 Cathy Jensen 82238 Pam Jensen 82204 Christy Johnson 82198 Deborah Johnson 69841 Dale Johnson 214683 Karren Johnson 82199 Linn Johnson 268478 Elaine Jones Donovan 82200 Helen Jones 203043 L.C. Jones 268476 Patricia Jordshaugen 203042 Lucinda Karlic 82201 Stefan Karlic 268470 Donna Kirby 82188 Clyde Kirby 268468 Janice Knudsen 82208 Ruth Korkowski 82186 Shirlee Krumplemann 269164 Maria Krzeszowski 203000 Mieczyslaw Krzeszowski 275715 Sandy Lasicka 82202 Bonnie L. Wasserman 82203 Janet LaWall 82195 Winnie Sue Lee 82196 Linda LeFebvre 202998 Carmen Leuschner 268504 Robert Leuschner 268466 Molly Linderoth 82197 Charlene Linvog 268505 Dixie Llewellin 82190 Dave Llewellin 268464 Janna Gingras (fka London) 82191 Linda Look 82192 Sharron Loveall 228981 Shannon Lowe 130082 Kathy Lumsden 203041 Nancy Lyon 82193 Linda Magnuson 82118 Carol Mahony 202994 Cindy Mahugh 268457 Barbara Maine 82119 Margaret Mamon 82120 Tony Mamon 268442 Karen Manning 82108 Debra Marcus 104289 Kathy Mare 82110 Margaret Maredza 82111 Diane Strayer (fka Martin) 82112 Jane Martin 82133 Richard Martin 268441 Shirley Martinez 268417 Nina Mason 56672 David Mason 268436 Laine Jill McClellan 268412 Sue McCracken 126795 Veronica McCrearyOliver 82113 Kenneth Oliver 268462 Constance McDowell 268502 Petra (Peggy) McIntyre 203024 Karen Meola 202999 David Meuli Jodi Miasnik 82116 Stephanie Lieb Migdal 82117 Gerald Migdal 268529 Gwendolyn Miller Juleff 82184 Rose Miller 178415 Beverly Mills 82183 Marla Mobley 82160 Shelia Mohn 82182 Valerie Moore 275747 Maggie Morales 96003 Gloria Morris 269154 Lorena Mrachek 202986 Kathleen MunroMcNeill 82181 Richard MunroMcNeill 268528 Debra Nelson 82180 Victoria Nomikos Blair 82179 Hazel Norbury 203163 Jackie O'Ryan 82189 Johnnie Clay Paradiso 203015 Margaret Parent 116882 Sarah Parrington 82178 Rosalie Passarelli 82177 Carmella Patterson 82176 Samuel Patterson 268432 Sue Peet 215683 Christina Peterson 275765 Christine Peterson 82239 Walter Peterson 268430 Shirley Peterson 145090 Barbara Phair 269160 Heidi Pierotti 82240 Alberta Plate Franco 82242 Pat Premel 268497 Steve Premel 268429 Susan Pupera 82231 Deloris Ragazzo 202990 Victoria Raider Romero 275760 DiAnne Rainard 82233 Marty Reeh 97855 Deborah Rennick 268142 Debra Porter Rettman 203027 Peter Rettman 275758 Eula Rials 82159 Margaret Richards 88274 June Richey 203028 Lloyd Richey 275716 Deja Robins 82234 Valorie Robinson Jensen 82223 Sandra Roose 19657 Angela Rose 268493 Crystal Rose 203003 Sharon Rossmeier 82224 Demetra Rouvas 82225 Julie Ryan 82226 Connie Samp 82158 Donna Sanders 268490 David Sanders 268426 Susan Sasnett 82227 Jay Sasnett 268424 Deborah Brown Saxton 268448 Lisa Schanz 82228 Allahna Schriver 82229 Sharon Seal 82157 Dianne Seibold 82230 Horst Seibold 268422 Teresa Selfe 82217 Eilene Sharp 82151 Kathleen Shelby 82219 Ruby Shumate 82220 Donnell Shumate 268420 Shirley Shumway 43185 Michael Shumway 268525 Sally Siddiqi 82221 Donna Siler 82222 Marilyn Skone 203014 Wanda Slater 268489
 Jacqueline Smith 82216 Donald Smith 268418 Kathleen Smith 268486 Robert Smith 268474 Judith Smith 82215 Tim Smith 268415 Deborah Snyders 82152 Anke Spencer 268485 Don Spencer 268437 Colleen Still 227825 Deborah Stoffel 82214 Jackie Stone 141320 Savana Swain 202997 Clifford Swain 268435 Renee Swanson 82194 Carol Sycks 82213 Robert Sycks 268434 Kathy Syrdal 82212 Phil Syrdal 268431 Ann Tabasinske 89787 Gary Tabasinske 7170 Kay Tamura 82211 Steven Tamura 268428 Margaret Taplin 268445 Deborah Tegelberg 202984 Claudeen Tobiason 82205 Jodi Tranter 203025 Frank Tranter 268427 Erma Turner 32831 Kathryn Ulrich 268409 Vicik Urias 82206 Magic VanAusdal 268408 Vicki Volkersz 82254 Marilyn Waara 275726 Elizabeth Walton Kilner 82253 Teresa Ward 236256 Kathleen Warren 82251 Donald Warren 268524 April Weber 82252 Chriss Webster 21897 Karolyn Webster 268443 Gloria White 82250 Donald White 268425 Lynda Williams 82187 Linda Lee Wilson Cashaw 82249 Susan Wilson 203030 Janet Lee Winston 203013 Mary Winters 268484 HazelJean Wolbert 202996 Dyanna Wolcott 82247 William Wolcott 268423 Ardyth Wuori 82248 Penny Wykes 82246 Sherry York 82245 Gary York 268421 Carolyn Young 31271 Diane Young 275763 Linda Young 82244 Joyce Zaborowski 82241 Sgt. Daniel Zaborowski 268419 Greg Ross 268526 881763 Alexia Anderson 225182 Barbara Anderson 231938 Philip Anderson 268170 Paula C. Bannow 11228 John Bannow 271718 Diana R. Beard 10440 Robert Davis Beard 271192 Sherry Bergman 15385 Charles Bergman 271992 Marsha Brown 71237 Jeannette Bulinski 15584 Gregg Gundersen 272541 Wendy R. Busch 10864 Lillian Castillo 122920 Elizabeth Chamberlayne 48517 Carol Cooke 10446 Donna Cornelisse 15383 Denise Crowell 10865 Mike Crowell 271721 Jacki Dasso 10454 John Thompson 271720 Sharon Ebert 223890 Dennis Ebert 271532 Laura B. Emerson 16301 Gary S. Emerson 263135 Carol Evans 11339 Dennis S. Evans 271538 Melinda F. Evans 10448 Hawley Roger Evans 272532 Carla Magdanz Everett 15585 Barbara Ferguson 10862 Charles Ferguson 262197 Nancy C. Franz 15382 Roger A. Franz 258077 Julia Bloch Frey 163423 Janette S. Gamet McMahon 11344 George McMahon 272764 Mary C. Graham 15386 Ronald Graham 274584 Xenia Graves 11341 Cheryl A. Gruse 11334 Roberta Guildner 10501 Ava Hamilton 11343 Delmar Hamilton 262660 Delores M. Haro 228508 Lori Haugland 206197 Mary R. Hein 16655 William Hein 272766 Janet Heitzmann 10449 Mary Frances Hilko 243918 Lucy Judson 10444 Craig Alan Yeager 272765 Betty Kenzel 10443 Richard E. Kenzel 263118 Judy Kurtz 10452 Judith Lavezzi 6088 Susanne Leuthauser 11337 Truman Leuthauser 262311 Harriet Elizabeth Mann 223977 Sharon L. Mazotti 223979 Daniel Mazotti 268168 Sandra R. Merrill 10451 Roy R. Merrill 262312 Laurel Ruth Mifflin 255908 John Mifflin 273601 Nathan Mifflin 254594 Sandra D. Miller 11342 John K. Miller 268162 Peggy Morgan 11336 Barbara R. Nowak 10445 Mary Ann Perkins 10447 Russell Perkins 263117 Ravonda L. Potter 10450 Roger Jay Potter 271533 Kathy Quinton 16300 Judith Anne Ramsay 10442 Charles E. Ramsay 271723 Pamela S. Reiter 11340 Peter Reiter 274587 Ella Ruth Rogers 9295 Elaine Rogers 16298 Donis Rogers 265558 Christine Seiffert 171920 Stefanie Selden 9271 Judy Sheppard 25992 M. Lee Sheppard 268166 Jessica A. Simkulet 11335 Janet Singletary 16654 Roger Singletary 268167 Evelyn M. Snyder 16302 Andrew Snyder 15387 Marcia Steel 16303 Mary Stewart 15387 Charles D. Stewart 265520 Karon Tiger 234904 Thelma L. Tilman 236252 Durcille Trolinger 206281 Jo Susan Verspohl 13063 Ronald Verspohl 272554 Carol J. Waltz 16299 Ronald F. Waltz 268165 Kathleen A. Watson 199542 Larry Watson 291814 Abby Weinstein 166871 Barry Weinstein 258076 Diane West 10408 Martha Whitehead 199551 Marlyin Wilson 25436 Vicki Woodard 10441 Tom George 171536 Deirdre J. Zietz 15384 Leonard E. Zietz 260920 Rebecca L. Adair 239633 Gary A. Adair 239634 Sharon C. Angel 145182 Gene R. Angel 304529 Katharine K. Beattie 106539 Fareda E. Belcher 239629 Floyd Belcher 106540 Linda M. Black 239635 William R. Black 239636 Mary A. Bonner 37245 Robert I. Bonner 239637 Johnsie C. Brown 117778 Joseph T. Brown, Jr. 326617 Vicki L. Brown 106541 Randy L. Brown 106542 Juanita L. Brown 106543 Shirley Mae Burroughs 106550 Robert Burroughs 106551 Beverley Davisson 106544 William A. Davisson 106545 Jason W. Davisson 106546 Debra G. Dean 12776 Mary Ann Evertson 106547 Robert W. Evertson 106548 Sandra L. Flynn 106549 Joyce Frieders 106569 Charles D. Frieders 106570 Patricia Graber 269036 Patricia J. Heuseveldt 239639 Ronald W. Heuseveldt 239640 Heather Hull 106571 Kenneth L. Hull 106572 Patty E. Hutton 106553 Leon D. Hutton 106554 Amy Marie Hutton 106552 Charlotte S. James 269035 Kay M. Kincade 243662 Paul W. Kincade 243663 Bonlyn G. Qulick 251829 Anna Louise Luhman 106555 Kersten Males 106575 William Males 106576 Roberta C. Martin 106573 Keith A. Martin 106574 Sarah E. McLeod Kirk 106556 David C. McInnis 106557 Billie Rae Mercer 106558 Sandra J. Mertens 106559 Ronald G. Mertens 106560 Kay Diane Milligan 6205 William D. Milligan 6206 Betsy A. Munson 106577 Judith A. Nichols 106561 James R. Nichols 106562 Kathleen K. Pope 106578 Rita M. Raaf 106579 Richard D. Raaf 106580 Courtney L. Raaf 106581 Elizabeth W. Rinehart 239641 Richard R. Rinehart 239642 Gaylene P. Schommer 106563 John W. Schommer 106564 Rachel H. Scott 106565 David L. Scott 106566 Janet L. Scott 106582 Janice A. Sell 239643 Steven K. Sell 239644 Fay Annetta Smith 106583 Rhonda J. Smith 212510 Peggy A. Sneegas 239645 Roger A. Sneegas 239646 Rebecca J. Stafford 297307 Sonja G. Sweek 106584 Nancy J. Taylor 106567 Mary Ann Thomas 106585 Steven J. Thomas 106586 Elizabeth E. Tomaszewicz 239648 George R. Tomaszewicz 239649 Patricia Ann Tronsgard 106568 Catherine L. Wood 239630 Joda D. Wright 239631 883602 Alexia Anderson 225182 Barbara Anderson 231938 Philip Anderson 268170 Paula C. Bannow 11228 John Bannow 271718 Diana R. Beard 10440 Robert Davis Beard 271192 Sherry Bergman 15385 Charles Bergman 271992 Marsha Brown 71237 Jeannette Bulinski 15584 Gregg Gundersen 272541 Wendy R. Busch 10864 Lillian Castillo 122920 Elizabeth Chamberlayne 48517 Carol Cooke 10446 Donna Cornelisse 15383 Denise Crowell 10865 Mike Crowell 271721 Jacki Dasso 10454 John Thompson 271720 Sharon Ebert 223890 Dennis Ebert 271532 Laura B. Emerson 16301 Gary S. Emerson 263135 Carol Evans 11339 Dennis S. Evans 271538 Melinda F. Evans 10448 Hawley Roger Evans 272532 Carla Magdanz Everett 15585 Barbara Ferguson 10862 Charles Ferguson 262197 Nancy C. Franz 15382
 Roger A. Franz 258077 Julia Bloch Frey 163423 Janette S. Gamet McMahon 11344 George McMahon 272764 Mary C. Graham 15386 Ronald Graham 274584 Xenia Graves 11341 Cheryl A. Gruse 11334 Roberta Guildner 10501 Ava Hamilton 11343 Delmar Hamilton 262660 Delores M. Haro 228508 Lori Haugland 206197 Mary R. Hein 16655 William Hein 272766 Janet Heitzmann 10449 Mary Frances Hilko 243918 Lucy Judson 10444 Craig Alan Yeager 272765 Betty Kenzel 10443 Richard E. Kenzel 263118 Judy Kurtz 10452 Judith Lavezzi 6088 Susanne Leuthauser 11337 Truman Leuthauser 262311 Harriet Elizabeth Mann 223977 Sharon L. Mazotti 223979 Daniel Mazotti 268168 Sandra R. Merrill 10451 Roy R. Merrill 262312 Laurel Ruth Mifflin 255908 John Mifflin 273601 Nathan Mifflin 254594 Sandra D. Miller 11342 John K. Miller 268162 Peggy Morgan 11336 Barbara R. Nowak 10445 Mary Ann Perkins 10447 Russell Perkins 263117 Ravonda L. Potter 10450 Roger Jay Potter 271533 Kathy Quinton 16300 Judith Anne Ramsay 10442 Charles E. Ramsay 271723 Pamela S. Reiter 11340 Peter Reiter 274587 Ella Ruth Rogers 9295 Elaine Rogers 16298 Donis Rogers 265558 Christine Seiffert 171920 Stefanie Selden 9271 Judy Sheppard 25992 M. Lee Sheppard 268166 Jessica A. Simkulet 11335 Janet Singletary 16654 Roger Singletary 268167 Evelyn M. Snyder 16302 Andrew Snyder 15387 Marcia Steel 16303 Mary Stewart 15387 Charles D. Stewart 265520 Karon Tiger 234904 Thelma L. Tilman 236252 Durcille Trolinger 206281 Jo Susan Verspohl 13063 Ronald Verspohl 272554 Carol J. Waltz 16299 Ronald F. Waltz 268165 Kathleen A. Watson 199542 Larry Watson 291814 Abby Weinstein 166871 Barry Weinstein 258076 Diane West 10408 Martha Whitehead 199551 Marlyin Wilson 25436 Vicki Woodard 10441 Tom George 171536 Deirdre J. Zietz 15384 Leonard E. Zietz 260920 Rebecca L. Adair 239633 Gary A. Adair 239634 Sharon C. Angel 145182 Gene R. Angel 304529 Katharine K. Beattie 106539 Fareda E. Belcher 239629 Floyd Belcher 106540 Linda M. Black 239635 William R. Black 239636 Mary A. Bonner 37245 Robert I. Bonner 239637 Johnsie C. Brown 117778 Joseph T. Brown, Jr. 326617 Vicki L. Brown 106541 Randy L. Brown 106542 Juanita L. Brown 106543 Shirley Mae Burroughs 106550 Robert Burroughs 106551 Beverley Davisson 106544 William A. Davisson 106545 Jason W. Davisson 106546 Debra G. Dean 12776 Mary Ann Evertson 106547 Robert W. Evertson 106548 Sandra L. Flynn 106549 Joyce Frieders 106569 Charles D. Frieders 106570 Patricia Graber 269036 Patricia J. Heuseveldt 239639 Ronald W. Heuseveldt 239640 Heather Hull 106571 Kenneth L. Hull 106572 Patty E. Hutton 106553 Leon D. Hutton 106554 Amy Marie Hutton 106552 Charlotte S. James 269035 Kay M. Kincade 243662 Paul W. Kincade 243663 Bonlyn G. Qulick 251829 Anna Louise Luhman 106555 Kersten Males 106575 William Males 106576 Roberta C. Martin 106573 Keith A. Martin 106574 Sarah E. McLeod Kirk 106556 David C. McInnis 106557 Billie Rae Mercer 106558 Sandra J. Mertens 106559 Ronald G. Mertens 106560 Kay Diane Milligan 6205 William D. Milligan 6206 Betsy A. Munson 106577 Judith A. Nichols 106561 James R. Nichols 106562 Kathleen K. Pope 106578 Rita M. Raaf 106579 Richard D. Raaf 106580 Courtney L. Raaf 106581 Elizabeth W. Rinehart 239641 Richard R. Rinehart 239642 Gaylene P. Schommer 106563 John W. Schommer 106564 Rachel H. Scott 106565 David L. Scott 106566 Janet L. Scott 106582 Janice A. Sell 239643 Steven K. Sell 239644 Fay Annetta Smith 106583 Rhonda J. Smith 212510 Peggy A. Sneegas 239645 Roger A. Sneegas 239646 Rebecca J. Stafford 297307 Sonja G. Sweek 106584 Nancy J. Taylor 106567 Mary Ann Thomas 106585 Steven J. Thomas 106586 Elizabeth E. Tomaszewicz 239648 George R. Tomaszewicz 239649 Patricia Ann Tronsgard 106568 Catherine L. Wood 239630 Joda D. Wright 239631
 1

In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 880 F.2d 769 (4th Cir. 1989); In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 88-1755(L) 880 F.2d 709 (Breland settlement) (heard Dec. 6, 1988) (4th Cir. 1989); In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 862 F.2d 1092 (4th Cir. 1988); In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 846 F.2d 267 (4th Cir. 1988); Maressa v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 839 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S. Ct. 76, 102 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1988); Grady v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 839 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1988), cert dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 109 S. Ct. 201, 101 L. Ed. 2d 972 (1988); Official Committee of Equity Security Holders v. Mabey, 832 F.2d 299 (4th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S. Ct. 1228, 99 L. Ed. 2d 428 (1988); Beard v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 828 F.2d 1029 (4th Cir. 1987); In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 828 F.2d 1023 (4th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S. Ct. 1246, 99 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1988); Committee of Dalkon Shield Claimants v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 828 F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1987); Van Arsdale v. Clemo, 825 F.2d 794 (4th Cir. 1987); Vancouver Women's Health Soc. v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 820 F.2d 1359 (4th Cir. 1987); In Re Beard, 811 F.2d 818 (4th Cir. 1987); and A.H. Robins Co. Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 876, 107 S. Ct. 251, 93 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1986). See addendum for listing of parties and Dalkon Shield claim numbers

 2

We have previously noted the "striking similarity both factually and on the legal issues" of the Robins and Johns-Manville cases. A.H. Robins Co. Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 1007 (4th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 876, 107 S. Ct. 251, 93 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1986)

 3

We are not persuaded by the argument that the 5.62% NO votes were from the claimants with the largest claims, that being necessary of course to make up more than one-third of the claims in amount. The argument goes that such claimants have the most to gain from a rejection of the Plan, but that proposition, we think, is not only supported by no evidence, it is not supported by logic, and is no more likely than the fact that the largest claimants have the most to lose by a rejection of the Plan. Indeed, it would seem that the latter is the more likely if one must choose between the two. Appellants take no exception to the findings of the district court that the liquidation value of the company is considerably less than its value in reorganization, and the part allocated to the claims of the Dalkon Shield claimants is considerably less, $2.5+ billion under the Plan as opposed to $1.6+ in liquidation. So, with a rejection of the Plan which resulted in liquidation, the largest claimants would be the biggest losers. We remain convinced, in view of the 94.38% affirmative vote, that had a weighted voting system been practicable and utilized, the required two-thirds in amount would have approved the Plan. It follows that the error, if any, is harmless

 4

We note that the district court's figure was within the range of the second highest estimation--that of Dr. Francine F. Rabinovitz, the expert for Aetna. The district court repeatedly rejected the credibility of the expert for the Dalkon Shield Claimants, the only expert with a higher estimation than Dr. Rabinovitz

 5

All claimants, both class A and B, are seeking to recover for injuries caused by use of the Dalkon Shield. The class B claimants were barred from non-subordinated recovery from the trust fund set up by the debtor generally because they failed to file in time. They turned to alternative defendants, which they allege are joint-tortfeasors, for recovery for their Dalkon Shield claims

 6

In addition to the $100,000,000 total of the Outlier policies, if there is excess coverage under the $250,000,000 Primary Excess Policy, it becomes an excess layer policy to the Outlier policies. This, as well as the participation of class B claimants in any excess of the trust fund, provides possible additional layers of protection to the class B claimants. Since there is no challenge to the adequacy of the funds made available to class B claimants we do not address the legal or factual strength of their claims. The district court, in its order approving the Breland settlement, found the claims against Aetna to be weak both factually and legally

 7

There are approximately 111,000 class B claims, and only 2,960 exercised their right to opt-out

 8

Subsection (a) (3) deals with community property of spouses and is not applicable

 9

The court did not decide the issue but assumed without deciding there was a jurisdictional question under Sec. 524 as to the authority of the bankruptcy court to release non-debtors. Republic Supply Co. v. Shoaf, 815 F.2d 1046, 1051 at n. 5. (5th Cir. 1987)