Class Five Nevada v. Dow Corning Corp. (In Re Dow Corning Corp.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• criticizing conclusory statements and mandating specific evidentiary findings with separate analysis for each individual release
• Section 1123(a)(4) was violated where Canadian governmental agencies accorded far more effective rights than United States
• “Because such an injunction is a dramatic measure to be used cautiously, we follow those circuits that have held that enjoining a non-consenting creditor’s claim is only appropriate in ‘unusual circumstances.’”
• “Because such an injunction is a dramatic measure to be used cautiously, we follow those circuits that have held that enjoining a non-consenting creditor’s claim is only appropriate in ‘unusual circumstances.””
• abrogated on other grounds by Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024); In re United Producers, Inc., 353 B.R. 507, 508 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2006), aff’d, 526 F.3d 942 (6th Cir. 2008
• “Because such an injunction is a dramatic measure to be used cautiously, we follow those circuits that have held Page 46 of 87 that enjoining a non-consenting creditor’s claim is only appropriate in ‘unusual circumstances.””

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).