Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------x

In re :

: Chapter 15

Asbestos Corporation Limited,1 :

: Case No. 25-10934 (LGB)

:

Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding. :

----------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION REGARDING FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVE’S MOTION FOR ORDER

RECOGNIZING AND

ENFORCING THE BAR DATE ORDERS AND CLAIMS ADJUDICATION ORDERS

Raymond Chabot, Inc., in its capacity as the court-appointed monitor ( the “Monitor”) and

authorized foreign representative (in such capacity, the “Foreign Representative”) of Asbestos

Corporation Limited (“ACL” or the “Foreign Debtor”) filed a motion (the “Motion”) on July 8,

2026 seeking relief under sections 105(a), 1501, 1507 and 1521 of title 11 of the United States

Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and Rules 2002 and 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy

Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) for an order (a) recognizing and enforcing the Superior Court

of Quebec (Commercial Division)’s (the “Canadian Court”) (i) Order Establishing a Bar Date of

Existing Asbestos Claims issued on January 6, 2026 (as rectified on January 7, 2026) (the

“Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order”); (ii) Order Establishing a Bar Date for Existing Non-Asbestos

Claims issued on December 12, 2025 (the “Non-Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order” and together

with the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order, the “Bar Date Orders”); (iii) Asbestos Claims Review

and Adjudication Order issued on June 19, 2026 (the “Asbestos Claims Adjudication Order”) and

(iv) Non-Asbestos Claims Review and Adjudication Order issued on May 12, 2026 (the “Non-

Asbestos Claims Adjudication Order” and together with the Asbestos Claims Adjudication Order,

the “Claims Adjudication Orders”) and (b) granting related relief [ECF No. 195]. In support of

1 The Debtor in this chapter 15 case, along with its unique identifier, is Asbestos Corporation Limited (Canadian

Federal Business Number: 104903273RC0001). The Debtor has a registered and business address in Canada of 840

Boul. Ouellet, Thetford Mines, QC G6G 7A5, Canada.

the Motion, the Foreign Representative submitted the (i) Declaration of Ayman Chaaban in Support

of the Foreign Representative’s Motion for Order Recognizing and Enforcing the Bar Date Orders

and Claims Adjudication Orders [ECF No. 197] (the “Chaaban Declaration) and (ii) Declaration

of Alain N. Tardif in Support of Foreign Representative’s Motion for Order Recognizing and

Enforcing the Bar Date Orders and Claims Adjudication Orders [ECF No. 196] (the “Tardif

Declaration”).

The Court held a status conference on the Motion on July 16, 2026, where it was

determined that the Motion would go forward solely with respect to the Foreign Representative’s

request for recognition and enforcement of the bar date orders [ECF No. 203-1]. Accordingly, the

Asbestos Parties2 filed an objection to the Motion [ECF No. 204] (the “Objection”) and a

Declaration of Jeremiah Ledwidge [ECF No. 205] (the “Ledwidge Declaration”) in support of the

Objection. The Foreign Representative filed a reply memorandum of law [ECF No. 207] (the

“Reply”) and a Declaration of Evan Hollander [ECF No. 208] (“Hollander Declaration”) in support

of the Reply. A Joinder and Reply Memorandum in support of the Motion was filed by Certain

London Market Insurers [ECF No. 209] (the “Joinder”).

An evidentiary hearing was held by the Court on the bar date portion of the Motion, the

recognition and enforcement of the Bar Date Orders on August 24, 2026. The Chaaban

Declaration, the Tardif Declaration, the Ledwidge Declaration, the Hollander Declaration

(collectively the “Declarations”) and the exhibits attached to the Declarations were admitted into

evidence, along with certain additional documents. The parties had the opportunity to cross-

2 The “Asbestos Parties” are Jami Nimeroff, solely in her capacity as the Chapter 7 Trustee (the “Trustee”) for the

bankruptcy estate of National Services Industries, Inc. (“NSI”) in connection with NSI’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case

pending in the United States Court for the District of Delaware under case no. 12-12057 (MFW), along with certain

individuals with personal injury claims pending against the above-captioned debtor, Asbestos Corporation Limited

(“ACL”), based on disease caused by asbestos-contaminated products for which ACL is responsible (the “Asbestos

Claimants”). Jami Nimeroff recently succeeded Charles M. Forman as Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of NSI on

July 10, 2026.

examine the declarants. Thereafter, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion and took the

matter under advisement.

The Court grants the Foreign Representative’s request for recognition and enforcement of

the Bar Date Orders. The Court has a number of concerns about the information provided to

asbestos claimants and potential asbestos claimants located in the United States and certain

procedures with respect to the claims process that it will specifically address herein so that the

Canadian Court and the parties in the pending proceeding before the Canadian Court under

Canada’s Companies Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended (the “CCAA

Proceeding”) will be made aware of this Court’s concerns.

The Court is aware that the CCAA Proceeding appears to be the first CCAA proceeding

that involves asbestos claimants. Canada has had several CCAA proceedings that have dealt with

mass torts. It appears that in many of those proceedings, bar dates were utilized as part of the

claims determination process. See ECF No. 195-1, Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order, fn 4.

In the United States, the process differs in several ways from the process outlined in the

Bar Date Orders and the Claims Adjudication Orders. The Bankruptcy Code has section 524(g)

which applies to asbestos cases. Many asbestos Chapter 11 cases do not have claims bar dates.

That is because the claims will be dealt with by trusts which are constituted as part of a confirmed

plan of reorganization where asbestos claimants vote on the proposed plan of reorganization.

Many other types of mass tort Chapter 11 cases have bar dates but, the claims allowance process

in those cases often takes place post-confirmation through a trust or trusts pursuant to a confirmed

plan of reorganization. The Bankruptcy Code and the Bankruptcy Rules contain numerous

provisions regarding bar dates and the claims allowance process in Chapter 11 cases. See §§ 501,

502, 503, 505, 506, and 507 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules 3001, 3002, 3003,

3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3012, 3013, and 3014.

In Canada, whether to have a claims bar date is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Here, the Monitor sought approval of the Claims Bar Date Orders, including proposed proof of

claim forms, from the Canadian Court. The proposed Claims Bar Date Orders and proposed

proof of claim forms were provided to counsel of the Asbestos Parties a few weeks in advance of

the hearing on the applications before the Canadian Court which took place on December 11,

2025. The Asbestos Parties provided comments to the Monitor concerning the Asbestos Claims

Bar Date Order and the proposed proof of claim and some of their comments were incorporated

in a revised Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order and revised proof of claim.

On December 11, 2025, a hearing was held before the Canadian Court on the approval of

the Claims Bar Date Orders, including the proposed proof of claim forms. At the hearing, Canadian

counsel for the Asbestos Parties appeared and raised the Asbestos Parties’ objections with the

Canadian Court. The Canadian Court considered the Asbestos Parties’ objections to the Asbestos

Claims Bar Date Order and took the matter under advisement. On January 6, 2026 (Rectified on

January 7, 2026), the Canadian Court issued its Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order which includes

explanations as to why the Canadian Court considered and denied the various objections by the

Asbestos Parties to the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order. See ECF No. 195-1, Asbestos Claims

Bar Date Order at ¶¶ 10-18. The Asbestos Parties did not seek leave to appeal the Asbestos Claims

Bar Date Order.

As this Court has previously noted “U.S. and Canada share the same common law

traditions and fundamental principles of law. Canadian [C]ourts afford creditors a full and fair

opportunity to be heard in a manner consistent with standards of U.S. due process.” In re Metcalfe

& Mansfield Alternative Investments, 421 B.R. 685, 698 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). The Court has

reviewed the transcript of the December 11, 2025 hearing. Exhibit A to the Hollander Declaration.

Justice Émond held a hearing at which he heard testimony from the Monitor, considered the

objections of the Asbestos Parties, including their objections to the Asbestos Claims Bar Date and

the proposed proof of claim, and then took the matter under advisement for a few weeks. Justice

Émond then approved the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order which includes his determinations

regarding the objections made by the Asbestos Parties.

The Monitor’s testimony at the December 11, 2025 hearing before the Canadian Court

discussed the Monitor’s process for formulating the asbestos bar date, the proof of claim form, and

the publication, media and social media campaign to provide notice to asbestos claimants who had

not filed litigation against ACL. The Monitor’s process included the retention of Dr. Stephanie

Plancich of National Economic Research Associates, Inc. who assisted with the preparation of the

proof of claim form and Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC who assisted with the

development of the claims filing process and the notice program designed to reach unknown

existing asbestos claimants. Motion at ¶ 34.3

In the Objection, the Asbestos Parties object to recognition and enforcement by this Court

of the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order on several grounds.4 The Asbestos Parties argue that the

Court has a duty under section 1522(a) of the Bankruptcy Code not to grant any relief under section

1519 or section 1521 of the Bankruptcy Code unless the interests of creditors and other interested

entities, including the debtor, are sufficiently protected. That is true. The Court has described

sufficient protection as embodying “three basic principles: ‘the just treatment of all holders of

3 The Court notes that the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order applies to persons who have been diagnosed with

symptoms or an injury that qualifies as an Existing Asbestos Claim as of the date of the Monitor’s Claims Bar Date

Certificate. Future Asbestos Claims are not subject to the bar date.

4 The Asbestos Parties do not object to recognition and enforcement of the Non-Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order.

claims against the bankruptcy estate, the protection of U.S. claimants against prejudice and

inconvenience in the processing of claims in the [foreign] proceeding, and the distribution of

proceeds of the [foreign] estate substantially in accordance with the order prescribed by U.S law.’”

In re Odebrecht Engenharia e Construção S.A.-Em Recuperação Jud., 669 B.R. 457, 474 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y. 2025).

The Asbestos Parties argue that bar dates are disfavored in asbestos Chapter 11 cases.

While it is true that that bar dates are not the norm in asbestos Chapter 11 cases in the United

States, in part because of section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, bar dates are not unheard of in

asbestos Chapter 11 cases and are not uncommon in other mass tort Chapter 11 cases. Reply at 4-

5. Moreover, bar dates are frequently used in Canadian CCAA cases. While it is true that there

might not have been a bar date had the Foreign Debtor filed for Chapter 11 in the United States,

the Court does not believe that this matters. The Canadian Court provided an opportunity for the

Asbestos Parties to be heard and carefully considered their objections to the Asbestos Claims Bar

Date Order, including the proof of claim, before entering the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order.

Courts, including this Court, have recognized and enforced bar date orders and other claims

process orders from insolvency proceedings pending in Canada. Motion at ¶ 64.

The Asbestos Parties argue that the proof of claim process and the bar date do not

adequately protect U.S. claimants. While the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order does not make some

things clear, the Court believes that it adequately protects U.S. claimants. The Court is not making

any findings with respect to the Claims Adjudication Orders and whether they adequately protect

U.S. claimants.

Pursuant to the process approved in the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order, U.S. claimants

have access to the proof of claim form online. U.S. claimants may complete and submit the proof

of claim online, by email or mail. So, there is limited inconvenience since those are methods used

to submit a proof of claim form in mass tort Chapter 11 cases in the United States. There is a

publication, media and social media program designed to reach U.S. claimants in addition to the

notice given by mail to known U.S. claimants. There is a hotline for claimants or their counsel to

call with any questions about the proof of claim form. Asbestos claimants have approximately six

months to complete and to submit proof of claim forms. While a longer period might be preferable,

the six-month period does not seem unduly short such that it is prejudicial to the U.S. claimants.

There are aspects of the claims process that the Court does not believe have been clearly

communicated to asbestos claimants and potential asbestos claimants which were mentioned at the

hearing on the Motion. First, the Monitor has determined that the claims filed by asbestos

claimants will be adjudicated under the laws of the Province of Quebec and Canada. It is not clear

to the Court that this has been communicated to asbestos claimants and potential asbestos

claimants. Also, the Monitor disclosed at the hearing that, after a proof of claim is reviewed by

the Monitor and found to be deficient in any way, the Monitor will send out a deficiency notice to

the claimant and provide them with a thirty-day period to cure any identified deficiencies. It would

be better to have a sixty-day period to cure any identified deficiencies since notice sent through

the mail from Canada can take more than a week to reach the United States. This process was not

disclosed in the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order. At the very least, it should be posted on all

websites for the Monitor and for filing proofs of claim so that asbestos claimants filing proofs of

claim are informed of that. Additionally, there is no information in the Asbestos Claims Bar Date

Order as to who the claims officers that will be handling appeals are and how they will be

determined, even though the Monitor at the hearing explained that they would be former Canadian

judges approved by the Canadian Court. At the very least, this information should be posted on

all websites for the Monitor and for filing proofs of claim so that asbestos claimants filing proofs

of claim are informed of that. Moreover, until the valuation matrix and claims protocol are

finalized and approved by the Canadian Court and thereafter, this Court has the opportunity to

determine if it will recognize and enforce the Claims Adjudication Orders, it might be prudent for

the Monitor not to make determinations on asbestos claims filed by United States citizens beyond

identifying deficiencies and providing notice to those asbestos claimants with the opportunity cure

such deficiencies. Furthermore, it might be prudent for the Monitor, the Foreign Debtor, and the

insurers to meet with the Asbestos Parties to discuss these issues and other issues that the Asbestos

Parties have raised regarding the CCAA plan process5 to see if any progress can be made between

the parties in resolving matters.

The Asbestos Parties also argue that Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order is manifestly against

public policy and thus, the Court should not recognize it under section 1506 of the Bankruptcy

Code. The Court disagrees. The standard for granting relief under section 1506 is narrow. The

Court finds that, despite the concerns raised above by the Court with respect to the claims filing

and bar date process for U.S. asbestos claimants, the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order is not

manifestly against public policy of the United States. There are a few asbestos Chapter 11 cases

with bar date orders and there are a number of mass tort Chapter 11 cases with bar date orders.

Moreover, if Congress wanted to expressly preclude having a bar date for asbestos claimants in

asbestos Chapter 11 cases, it could have done so and it did not. Canada does not have a law like

section 524(g) governing asbestos claims and does not require that a trust structure be used in

5 The Court understands the importance of U.S. asbestos claimants having a vote on their treatment, as does the

Canadian Court. However, the Court does not believe that the possibility that no CCAA plan will be confirmed in

the CCAA Proceeding and that payment will be made pursuant to some other mechanism is a sufficient reason for

this Court to deny recognition and enforcement of the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order. The issue of voting rights

(or lack thereof) for the U.S. asbestos claimants in the CCAA Proceeding should be considered in connection with

future recognition and enforcement requests made of this Court regarding orders issued by the Canadian Court

which impact the treatment and recovery of the U.S. asbestos claimants in the restructuring of the Foreign Debtor.

asbestos CCAA proceedings. However, differences in the laws of the United States and Canada

with respect to the treatment of asbestos claimants in restructuring proceedings does not equate to

the claims filing and bar date process set forth in the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order being

manifestly against public policy of the United States.

The Court has concerns about the claims adjudication process in Canada which seems

unfinished with several major issues currently unresolved. The Court considered the Asbestos

Parties’ request to deny recognition and enforcement of the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order until

all of the elements of the claims adjudication process are determined by the Canadian Court. The

Court considered the uncertainty that delaying a decision on the recognition and enforcement of

the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order by this Court, given the September 10 bar date, might cause,

including the Canadian Court’s view that the CCAA Proceeding needs to progress. The Court also

considered the objections of the Asbestos Parties as to the insufficiency of time, the insufficiency

of information provided by the Monitor on the website and in the data room6, the incomplete status

of the claims adjudication process and interplay of the claims filing and bar date process with the

claims adjudication process. However, the Court determined that, on balance, it is appropriate to

rule now on the request for recognition and enforcement of the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order.

Having determined that the interests of the creditors and other interested parties, including

the debtor, are sufficiently protected in connection with the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order, the

Court finds that, under section 1521(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code, it is appropriate to recognize

6 As discussed at the hearing on the Motion, the Court considered the timing of the provision of the information by

the Monitor which was delayed for several months due to litigation involving the Monitor and the Asbestos Parties

but, based on the Monitor’s testimony, determined that neither side was blameless for the delay in the Asbestos

Parties’ access to the information in the data room. The Asbestos Parties also argued that the information provided

by the Monitor in the data room is insufficient to prepare proofs of claim by the bar date. The Canadian Court has an

application pending before it for an extension of the asbestos bar date and to require additional discovery requested

by the Asbestos Parties. Since these issues are currently the subject of an application pending before the Canadian

Court, this Court will not address them in this decision.

and enforce the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order. Approval of a bar date and claims filing

procedures is relief available to a trustee under the Bankruptcy Code and the Bankruptcy Rules,

even in asbestos cases. For the reasons set forth above, the Court also finds that recognition and

enforcement of the Asbestos Claims Bar Date Order is consistent with the principles of comity and

section 1507(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the relief requested in the Motion as

to the recognition and enforcement of the Claims Bar Date Orders, pursuant sections 105(a), 1501,

1507, 1521, and 1522 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court makes no determination at this time

with respect to the remaining relief requested in the Motion with respect to the Claims Adjudication

Orders. The Foreign Representative shall submit an order to the Court for entry with respect to the

portion of the Motion addressed in this decision.

Dated: New York, New York

September 3, 2026

/s/ Lisa G. Beckerman

The Honorable Lisa G. Beckerman

United States Bankruptcy Judge