Menard-Sanford v. A.H. Robins Co.

concluding that coiporation was successor in interest to sole proprietorship | noting that under Rule 23(b)(2) absent class members are bound without notice | affirming power of bankruptcy court to enjoin suits permanently against nondebt-ors in a plan, where there existed certain indemnification rights against the debtor | contingent claims are liquidated according to estimation provision, 11 U.S.C. § 502(c), which calculates aggregate liabilities | affirming approval of class settlement resolving claims of class members with unmanifested symptoms of disease resulting from use of the Dalkon Shield | granting class certification to victims of asbestos related diseases and appointing a representative for persons exhibiting injuries in the future | affirming approval of class settlement resolving claims of class members with unmanifested symptoms of disease resulting from use of the Daikon Shield | “nothing contained in this Section 8.05 is intended to confer jurisdiction upon the Court over, or grant authority to monitor, the day-to-day operations of the Trusts or the Claims Resolution Facility” | “nothing contained in this Section 8.05 is intended to confer jurisdiction upon the Court over, or grant authority to monitor, the day-to-day operations of the Trusts or the Claims Resolution Facility” | approving permanent injunction which protected insurer, members of Robins family, present and former officers and directors and certain doctors, based in part upon payments made by some of them and in part upon some of them holding indemnification rights against the debt- or | "if not a ground for certification per se, certainly settlement should be a factor, and an important factor to be considered when determining certification" | "[W]e do not think that [§ 524(e)] must be literally applied in every case as a prohibition on the power of the bankruptcy courts.” | “ ‘proper’ in determining certification to consider whether such certification will foster settlement of the case with advantage to the parties and with great savings in judicial time and services” | “We do not decide whether the district court’s voting procedure violated § 1126(c) because, in view of the outcome of the vote, the challenged procedure was at most harmless error.” | “if not a ground for certification per se, certainly settlement should be a factor, and an important factor to be considered when determining certification” | followed Republic Supply Co. v. Shoaf, 815 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir.1987) | injunction protected, among others, non-contributing directors and attorneys for the debtor | affirming the Court’s exclusive jurisdiction