> Is there any obvious reason why Halliburton's asbestos claimants would
> agree when no others would? Is the cap appreciably higher on a per claim
> basis than anything previously offered?
I'm not sure about the relative size of the cap. Nor, why this deal will be
able to close, except that maybe the up front cash Halliburton had to kick in
(of which, about 80% is still potentially insured by yet another former
Halliburton subsidiary insurance company) was more than other settlements
might have received in as short a time period.
>
> 2. Once there's been this agreement, what's the point of bankruptcy?
> Shouldn't they just be setting up a trust? If they are going bankrupt
> because they can't afford the settlement, then won't bankruptcy put the
> settlement into jeopardy? Especially if the half entity that is going
> bankrupt dissolves rather than re-emerging?
>
That's a great question. There should be no point for a bankruptcy if there's
an agreement and the money's set aside in a trust. But, this is a totally
convoluted arrangement.
And, it isn't a normal, creditors-fight-it-out-in-bankruptcy court filing. It's a 'pre-packaged' (all claims decided in advance) chapter 11 filing. They are definitely going bankrupt as part of the settlement, but not because of the settlement. In there own words,
"The Chapter 11 process and the oversight of a bankruptcy court is the only means available today to fully and permanently resolve all personal injury asbestos liability, including potential future claims."
Really, it's a way to legally kill off Dresser Industries (that brought all the asbestos suits into Halliburton when Cheney bought them in 1998, and that owns KBR) without harming the government contract side of KBR.
Nomi
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030421/eb803627/attachment.htm>