From our private database of 32,100+ case briefs...
In re Owens Corning
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
419 F.3d 195 (2005)
In 1997, Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) (plaintiff), in its capacity as the agent for a syndicate of banks (Banks), loaned Owens Corning (OC) (defendant) $2 billion. Because of OC’s low credit rating and its exposure to asbestos litigation liability, CSFB required guarantees of payment from a number of OC subsidiaries. OC was structured with numerous subsidiaries, all with distinct purposes and retaining their legal separation from OC through corporate governance and operations. That said, the accounting of interest and royalty payments in intercompany transactions among OC and the subsidiaries was not perfect. The financing agreement between CSFB, OC, and the subsidiary guarantors included a number of provisions intended to ensure that the subsidiary guarantors remained separate from OC and could be released from their obligations only under limited circumstances. In 2000, OC and 17 of its subsidiaries (Debtors) filed for reorganization under Chapter 11. The Debtors eventually proposed a reorganization plan based on a deemed consolidation. As in substantive consolidation, the Debtors would pool all of their assets and liabilities into the parent, OC, such that claims against the subsidiary Debtors would become claims against OC. As a “deemed” consolidation, however, the Debtors proposed that they be deemed to be consolidated for purposes of valuing and satisfying claims, making distributions, and voting, but that the Debtors in actuality would retain their separateness. Under the proposed plan, the subsidiary guarantees provided to CSFB would be eliminated. The Banks objected to consolidation. The district court ruled in the Debtors’ favor, finding consolidation to be warranted on the grounds that the Debtors had the same substantial identity and consolidation would simplify and expedite the reorganization process. CSFB appealed on behalf of the Banks.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Ambro, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 582,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 582,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 32,100 briefs, keyed to 984 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.