Official Committee of Equity Security Holders v. Mabey

832 F.2d 299 (1987)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Official Committee of Equity Security Holders v. Mabey

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
832 F.2d 299 (1987)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

Pharmaceutical company A.H. Robins Co. (Robins) (debtor) manufactured an intrauterine device (IUD) called the Dalkon Shield in the 1970s and early 1980s. In 1985, Robins filed bankruptcy under Chapter 11 because a multitude of women had sued Robins alleging the device made them infertile. Approximately 325,000 women filed claim notices alleging injuries. Robins was a publicly traded company with more than 20 million shares of common stock outstanding. The district court appointed an Official Committee of Equity Security Shareholders (equity committee) (plaintiff) to represent the public shareholders’ interests. A year later, in August 1986, the court appointed Ralph Mabey (defendant) as an examiner to suggest a reorganization plan. Robins proposed a plan and disclosure statement in April 1987, but no action was taken because another pharmaceutical company proposed a merger that would compensate Dalkon Shield claimants from a $1.75 billion fund and pay all other creditors’ claims in full, which would require a revised plan and disclosure statement. Meanwhile, Mabey, Robins, the Dalkon Shield claimants committee, and the future claimants’ representative moved to establish a $15 million emergency-treatment program. The fund would provide tubal reconstructive surgery and in vitro fertilization for infertile women who used the IUD. Only claimants under 40 were candidates for the $10,000–$15,000 surgery, which restored fertility 30–60 percent of the time. On May 21, 1987, the district court approved and ordered the fund established without mentioning the source of its authority to do so. However, in denying the equity committee’s motion for a stay, the court cited expansive equity powers under Bankruptcy Code § 105(a), explaining that the dire circumstances required it “to invoke its power under § 105(a) and take those steps needed to treat these claimants equitably,” citing a Supreme Court decision in support. The equity committee appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Chapman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership