Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv—OO217-JPF Document 3-21 Filed O4/13/2005 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
1 DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
. ·—----—————--------·-------------—·------------»--··»·~ x
IN RE Chapter 11 l
OWENS CORNING, g Q., Case Nos. 00-3837 to 3834 (JKF)
: (Jointly Administered)
Related tn D.1. Nu. 14180
Debrnrs. : Hearing Held February 2s,1nos
: Agenda Item No. 4
------ - --------------- -·· —--- -· --—-------------------- —--X
n ORDER
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2005, Credit Suisse First Boston ("CS1*`l;l"), as Agent
for the pre-petition bank lenders to Owens Corning and certain of its subsidiaries, moved the
Court (the “Motion") for an order authorizing CSFB to commence an adversary proceeding on
behalf of the estates of the aboveaaaptioned debtors and debtors in possession (the “Debtors”)
against certain physicians known as B-readers who CSFB alleges falsely reported chest
radiogaph (x-ray) readings positive for asbestos-related disease in personal injury claims
brought against the Debtors pre-petition (the “Adversary Proceeding");
WHEREAS, CSFB, as Agent, agreed that the bank lenders would bear the costs
of prosecuting the Adversary Proceeding (while reserving the right to seek court approval for
reimbursement of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from any monies recovered);
WHEREAS, on February l0, 2005, Owens Corning submitted a response and
conditional opposition to the Motion (the "Conditiona1 Opposition") in which it agreed to
withdraw its opposition if the bank lenders agreed not only to cover the costs of prosecuting the ‘
Adversary Proceeding but also to indemnify Owens Corning, its directors, officers, agents,
4¤4.nuz-nss

Case 1 :05-cv-00217-JPF Document 3-21 Filed 04/13/2005 Page 2 of 2
professionals and employees against any costs or expenses, including legal fees, relating to -
potential counterclaims brought in the Adversary Proceeding by defendants;
- WHEREAS, on February 18, 2005, CSFB tiled a motion for leave to file a reply
memorandum to the Conditional Opposition (the "Reply”), and on March S, 2005, the Court
entered an order authorizing CSFB to file the Reply, which CSFB did on March 10, 2005;
WHEREAS, at a hearing on the merits of the Motion before the Court on
February 28, 2005 (the "Hearing"), the Court required as a condition to granting the Motion that
CSFB, as Agent for the bank lenders, provide an indemnity or bond or equivalent form of
security to Owens Corning against potential counterelaims; -
WHEREAS, CSFB, as Agent for the bank lenders, did not comply with the
Court’s condition;
NOW THEREFORE, having considered the Motion, the Conditional Opposition
and the Reply, and the arguments of counsel at the Hearing, and after due deliberation thereon,
and good and sufficient cause appearing therefore, and due and proper notice of the Motion
having been given, it is hereby
jmé onosrtsn sat the Maxam is nttmnn. @J<»y¤»T` Dwi/{J /*-’¢€#”=’~*s€»"-t
Dated: MqrcA-§(gjZ, mw I M-hg"
‘ Wilmington, DE fall · { gmg /Lp_L
_ ··
EY THE C URT:
l " K. J
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
2