In re: Dow Corning Corp., Bear Stearns Government Securities v. Dow Corning Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
419 F.3d 543 (2005)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Twenty-seven plaintiffs sued Dow Corning Corporation (Dow) (defendant), seeking recovery for injuries resulting from allegedly faulty breast implants manufactured by Dow. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, under which Dow agreed to pay the plaintiffs a total of $17,000,000 over several years in a series of installments. Dow also agreed to pay $100 for each day that Dow was late in paying any particular plaintiff. This provision was initially proposed as a penalty provision but was described in the final agreement as liquidated damages. Dow later filed for bankruptcy and stopped making settlement payments. The plaintiffs sold their rights to the settlement payments to Bear Stearns Investment Products, Inc. and related entities (Bear Stearns) (plaintiff). Years later, the bankruptcy court approved a reorganization plan for Dow that included payment to Bear Stearns of the remaining settlement amount of $13,000,000, plus interest of $9,600,000, but did not allow for the $8,750,000 that was requested as liquidated damages. Bear Stearns appealed the denial of its liquidated damages claim to the district court. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Dow, finding that the damages clause was an unenforceable penalty provision. Bear Stearns appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cole, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
