> I thought filing bankruptcy in an attempt to escape asbestos
> claims was always an all or nothing deal, which is why many companies
> declined to follow John Manville 20 years ago. But there was a new wave of>
> filings a couple of years ago by Babcock &Wilcox, Owens Corning and WR
> Grace. If these companies had the option of just sinking their
> abestos-laden subsidiary the way you say Halliburton is doing with
> Dresser, wouldn't they have done it? Has something crucial happened to
> make possible now what was never legally possible before? And if
> Halliburton gets away with this, won't every company do it for every kind
> of large scale liability?
I guess I keep bringing this deal of KBR / Hallburton up because it is so bizarre and unique and not mentioned very often. I don't think it is a question of legal possibility. I imagine the other companies you mentioned would like to be able to do the same thing and if they could reach a similar agreement with those suing them, would.
I just think it's something Halliburton is getting away with because they can, meaning the lawyers and asbestos creditors committee agreed to the $2.8 bln cap (actually that $2.8bln, plus 59 million shares of Halliburton stock, plus some bonds are going to be put into a fund for all present and future claimants.)
Halliburton made a point of the fact that so many government contracts are booked through KBR. As such if KBR were to file for chapter 11 completely - bankruptcy courts would all of a sudden be involved with their activities - and judging from KBR's current relationship with the government, that would probably be considered an unthinkable 'security violation'. Either way, the whole arrangement is odd. But, then aside from all the White House ties, Halliburton's CEO happens to be an ex-Arthur Anderson partner, and pretty good at accountant gimmicks.
Nomi
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030421/0a7bdf22/attachment.htm>