Chemtura - Discharge Injunction Motion Firmenich Facility ...Hearing Date: August 22, 2012 at 9:45...

Hearing Date: August 22, 2012 at 9:45 a.m. (ET)

Objection Deadline: August 8, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. (ET)

K&E 23279073

Richard M. Cieri

Craig A. Bruens

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

601 Lexington Avenue

New York, New York 10022-4611

Telephone: (212) 446-4800

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900

M. Natasha Labovitz

DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP

919 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Telephone: (212) 909-6000

Facsimile: (212) 909-6836

Counsel to the Reorganized Debtors

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

)

In re: ) Chapter 11

)

CHEMTURA CORPORATION, et al., ) Case No. 09-11233 (REG)

)

Reorganized Debtors. ) Jointly Administered

)

NOTICE OF REORGANIZED DEBTORS’ MOTION FOR AN

ORDER ENFORCING THE DISCHARGE INJUNCTION UNDER

THE DEBTORS’ CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF REORGANIZATION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Chemtura Corporation (“Chemtura”) and its affiliates in

these chapter 11 cases (collectively, the “Reorganized Debtors” and, before the effective date of

the chapter 11 plan of reorganization confirmed by the Court, the “Debtors”) have filed the

Reorganized Debtors’ Motion for an Order Enforcing the Discharge Injunction Under the

Debtors’ Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization (the “Motion”).

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that any responses or objections to the relief

requested in the Motion must be in writing, must conform to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy

09-11233-reg Doc 5769 Filed 07/26/12 Entered 07/26/12 00:10:08 Main Document Pg 1 of 345

¨0¤{,A,'9 "3«

0911233120725000000000002

Docket #5769 Date Filed: 7/26/2012

2

Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) and the Local Rules of the Bankruptcy Court (the

“Local Bankruptcy Rules”), and must be filed with the Bankruptcy Court electronically by

registered users of the Bankruptcy Court’s case filing system (the User’s Manual for the

Electronic Case Filing System can be found at www.nysb.uscourts.gov, the official website for

the Bankruptcy Court) and, by all other parties in interest, on a 3.5 inch disk, in text-searchable

Portable Document Format (PDF), Wordperfect or any other Windows-based word processing

format (in either case, with a hard-copy delivered directly to Chambers), and must be served

upon: (a) the undersigned counsel to the Reorganized Debtors; (b) the Office of the United States

Trustee for the Southern District of New York, 33 Whitehall Street, 21st Floor, New York, New

York, 10004, Attn: Susan Golden, Esq.; and (c) all persons and entities that have formally

requested notice by filing a written request for notice, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002 and the

Local Bankruptcy Rules, so as to be actually received no later than August 8, 2012 at 4:00

p.m. (ET).

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a hearing (the “Hearing”) on the Motion will

be held on August 22, 2012 at 9:45 a.m. (ET) before the Honorable Robert E. Gerber, United

States Bankruptcy Judge, in Room 523 of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern

District of New York, Alexander Hamilton Custom House, One Bowling Green, New York,

New York, 10004. You must attend the Hearing if you disagree with the relief requested in the

Motion and have filed an objection or response. If an objection or response is not timely filed

and served with respect to the Motion, the Court may enter an order granting the relief requested

in the Motion, which order may be entered with no further notice or opportunity to be heard

offered to any party.


3

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that copies of the Motion may be obtained from

the Court’s website http://www.ecf.nysb.uscourts.gov or, without charge, the website of the

claims and noticing agent at www.kccllc.net/chemtura.

New York, New York /s/ Craig A. Bruens

Dated: July 25, 2012 Richard M. Cieri

Craig A. Bruens




Telephone: (212) 446-4800

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900

- and -

M. Natasha Labovitz


919 Third Avenue


Telephone: (212) 909-6000

Facsimile: (212) 909-6836




Response Deadline: August 8, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. (ET)

Richard M. Cieri

Craig A. Bruens




Telephone: (212) 446-4800

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900

M. Natasha Labovitz


919 Third Avenue


Telephone: (212) 909-6000

Facsimile: (212) 909-6836




)

In re: ) Chapter 11

)


)


)

REORGANIZED DEBTORS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER

ENFORCING THE DISCHARGE INJUNCTION UNDER THE

DEBTORS’ CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF REORGANIZATION


i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................1

JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................5

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................6

I. The Debtors‘ Chapter 11 Filing And Their Efforts To Address Potential

Diacetyl Liabilities ...................................................................................................6

A. The Diacetyl Liabilities In The Context Of The Chapter 11 Cases .............6

B. The Diacetyl TRO And Discussion Of The Latency Period ........................7

II. The Court‘s Approval Of The Debtors‘ Comprehensive Bar Date Noticing

Program Over The Objection Of Certain Diacetyl Claimants Represented

By HFM ...................................................................................................................8

III. The Debtors‘ Settlement Of Diacetyl Claims Held By Persons

Represented By HFM ............................................................................................12

IV. Confirmation Of The Debtors‘ Chapter 11 Plan, Post-Effective Date

Enforcement Of The Discharge Injunction, And The Claimants‘ Filing Of

The Diacetyl Lawsuits Against The Chemtura Defendants ...................................13

A. Confirmation and Discharge ......................................................................13

B. Prior Enforcement Of The Discharge Injunction Against HFM ................14

C. The New HFM Diacetyl Claims Asserted In The Diacetyl Lawsuits ........15

RELIEF REQUESTED ...............................................................................................................16

BASIS FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................................................17

I. The Court Has Jurisdiction To Enforce The Discharge Injunction. ......................18

II. The Claimants‘ Claims Arose Before The Petition Date. ......................................20

III. The Claimants Were Unknown Creditors Who Received Constitutionally

Sufficient Notice Of The Bar Date By Publication. ..............................................21

IV. If The Court Determines That The Publication Notice Was Not

Constitutionally Sufficient For Claimants Who Had Not Manifested Any


ii

Injury As Of The Bar Date, The Claimants Must Still Satisfy Their Burden

Of Proof. ................................................................................................................26

A. The Claimants Have Not Provided Any Proof Of Their Injuries. .............26

B. The Claimants Must Prove That Their Claims Were Not Released

Under The HFM Settlement.......................................................................27

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................27

MOTION PRACTICE.................................................................................................................28

NOTICE ........................................................................................................................................28


iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs. v. Jensen (In re Jensen),

995 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1993) ..................................................................................................... 20

Daewoo Int’l. (Am.) Corp. Creditor Trust v. SSTS Am. Corp.,

2003 WL 21355214 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2003) ......................................................................... 21

DePippo v. Kmart Corp.,

335 B.R. 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .................................................................................................. 22

Grant v. U.S. Home Corp. (In re U.S.H. Corp. of New York),

223 B.R. 654 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) ...................................................................................... 21

Holmes v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l,

745 F. Supp. 2d 176 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) ....................................................................................... 21

In re Chateaugay Corp.,

2009 WL 367490 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2009) ...................................................... 21, 22, 25

In re Chateaugay Corp.,

213 B.R. 633 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) .................................................................................................. 18

In re Placid Oil Co.,

463 B.R. 803 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2012) ..................................................................................... 22

In re Quigley Co., Inc.,

383 B.R. 19 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008) ........................................................................................ 21

In re Spiegel, Inc.,

No. 03-11540, 2007 WL 201112 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2007) .......................................... 19

In re Union Hosp. Ass’n of the Bronx,

226 B.R. B.R. 134 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) .............................................................................. 22

Local Loan Co. v. Hunt,

292 U.S. 234 (1934) .................................................................................................................. 18

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,

339 U.S. 306 (1950) .................................................................................................................. 22

Pearl-Phil GMT (Far East) Ltd. v. Caldor Corp.,

266 B.R. 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) .................................................................................................. 20

Solow v. Kalikow (In re Kalikow),

602 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................................... 5

Texaco Inc. v. Sanders (In re Texaco, Inc.),

182 B.R. 937 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) ........................................................................................ 5


iv

The LTV Corp., LTV v. AM Gne. Corp. (In re Chateaugay Corp.),

201 B.R. 48 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) .................................................................................. 18, 19

Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Aguiar (In re Waterman S.S. Corp.),

141 B.R. 552 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992) ...................................................................................... 23

Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Aguilar (In re Waterman S.S. Corp.),

157 B.R. 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ................................................................................ 10, 11, 23, 24

Waterman S.S. Corp.,

200 B.R. 770 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) ................................................................................ 17, 26

STATUTES

11 U.S.C §§ 101-1532 .................................................................................................................... 5

11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A)................................................................................................................... 20

11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1) ................................................................................................................. 17

11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(1) .................................................................................................................... 18

11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) .................................................................................................................... 17

28 U.S.C. § 1334 ....................................................................................................................... 5, 18

28 U.S.C. § 1408 ............................................................................................................................. 5

28 U.S.C. § 1409 ............................................................................................................................. 5

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) ..................................................................................................................... 5

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) ..................................................................................................................... 8

OTHER AUTHORITIES

H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 309 (1977),

reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6266; S. Rep. No. 95-989, at 21,

reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5807 ............................................................................. 20


Chemtura Corporation (―Chemtura‖) and its affiliates in these chapter 11 cases

(collectively, the ―Reorganized Debtors‖ and, before the effective date of the chapter 11 plan of

reorganization confirmed by the Court, the ―Debtors‖) hereby seek entry of an order,

substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, enforcing the discharge injunction in these

chapter 11 cases against nine individuals (collectively, the ―Claimants‖)1 represented by

Humphrey Farrington & McClain, P.C. (―HFM‖) and the Locks Law Firm, LLC

(the ―Locks Law Firm‖) as plaintiffs in the post-confirmation diacetyl lawsuits listed on Exhibit

B annexed hereto (collectively, the ―Diacetyl Lawsuits‖). Chemtura and Chemtura Canada

Co./Cie (―Chemtura Canada,‖ and together with Chemtura, the ―Chemtura Defendants‖) are

defendants in these lawsuits.2 The Diacetyl Lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of

Middlesex County, New Jersey on September 12, 2011, but were not served on Chemtura until

on or after July 9, 2012. Chemtura Canada has not been served. In support of this motion, the

Reorganized Debtors respectfully state as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. The Reorganized Debtors seek enforcement of the permanent injunction

prohibiting the pursuit of discharged claims against the Reorganized Debtors (the ―Discharge

Injunction‖) under the Court‘s November 3, 2010 order (the ―Confirmation Order‖)

1 The Claimants are: Herbert Rose, Carl Gabauer, Leroy Hummell, James McCurdy, Isaiah Peagler, John

Williams, Kenneth Titone, Frederick Towns, and Louis Shoemaker.

2 The other named defendants in the Diacetyl Lawsuits are: Aaroma Holding, LLC, Centrome, Inc. D/B/A

Advanced Biotech, BASF Corporation, BASF SE, Berje Incorporated, Bush Boake Allen, Inc., Chr. Hansen,

Inc., Citrus and Allied Essences, Ltd., Dalian Luck Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., DSM Food Specialties USA, Inc.,

DSM Food Specialties B.V., Duane Street Capital, LLC, Elan Chemical Company, First Illes Investments, LLC,

Fleurchem, Inc., Frutarom USA Inc., Gist-Brocades Savory Ingredients, Inc., Gold Coast Ingredients Inc.,

International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., Illovo Sugar, McCormick & Company, Inc., O‘Laughlin Industries,

Inc., Penta Manufacturing Co., Phoenix Aromas & Essentials Oils, Inc., Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., Sigma-Aldrich

Corporation, Ungerer & Company, Inc., Usines Lambiotte SA, and John Doe Defendants 1-20.


2

confirming the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Chemtura Corporation, et al. (the ―Plan‖) (Dkt. No.

4409), including the prosecution of the Diacetyl Lawsuits against the Chemtura Defendants.

2. In the Diacetyl Lawsuits, the Claimants seek damages for alleged personal

injuries that they say arose from exposure to diacetyl at the Firmenich manufacturing plant

located in Middlesex County in Plainsboro, New Jersey (the ―Firmenich Facility‖). The

Claimants allege different periods of exposure, starting from 1984 and 2000, and continuing to

2011. Because the Chemtura Defendants ceased manufacturing and/or distributing diacetyl in

2005, several years before filing their chapter 11 cases, it is certain that the claims at issue

insofar as they relate to diacetyl manufactured or sold by the Chemtura Defendants are

prepetition claims that were subject to treatment in the Debtors‘ chapter 11 cases.

3. None of the Claimants filed a proof of claim in the chapter 11 cases. Each of the

Claimants was an unknown creditor who was given constitutionally sufficient notice of the bar

date by publication such that enforcing the Discharge Injunction is appropriate. As the Court

may recall, the Debtors implemented a comprehensive, targeted program to provide both known

and unknown claimants with notice of the bar date in these chapter 11 cases. In addition to

generalized publication notices of the bar date in national newspapers, Chemtura‘s program

included the publication of site-specific notices in known locations of potential diacetyl use.

Each site-specific notice included specific references to diacetyl, butter flavoring, and certain

types of claims alleged to be associated with diacetyl exposure.

4. Of particular importance to this motion, one of the locations for which the

Debtors created and published a site-specific notice was the Firmenich Facility – the same

facility where each of the Claimants in the Diacetyl Lawsuits has alleged exposure to diacetyl.

This location was added to the bar date noticing program at the behest of the Claimants‘ current


3

co-counsel, HFM, following a contested bar date hearing at which the sufficiency of notice to

unknown diacetyl claimants was directly considered by the Court. Specifically, HFM (acting on

behalf of its diacetyl clients then known to the Chemtura Defendants), was one of several law

firms that had objected to the Debtors‘ bar date noticing program. HFM participated in the

contested hearing and had direct input into the ultimate content and scope of the bar date

noticing.

5. After the contested hearing, the Court expressly approved the Debtors‘ bar date

noticing program, including the content and geographical scope of the site-specific notices. In

doing so, the Court overruled the various bar date objections, finding both that the Debtors

needed to establish a bar date and that their proposed noticing program was reasonable and

appropriately tailored to the specific circumstances. In fact, the Court welcomed the Debtors‘

efforts to craft specific notices that would help prospective claimants determine whether they

might have a claim, noting that this was the kind of enhanced noticing necessary to ―make [their]

bar date stick‖ in the context of potential future tort litigation such as litigation over diacetyl

claims. See infra ¶¶23-26.

6. Now, more than two years after it complained about the Debtors‘ bar date motion

and successfully advocated to expand the notices to include specific publication notices related

to the Firmenich Facility, HFM (as co-counsel with the Locks Law Firm) appears to be attacking

the very noticing program it helped design by attempting to prosecute these new Diacetyl

Lawsuits against the Chemtura Defendants despite their failure to file a proof of claim and in

blatant disregard of the Discharge Injunction. In addition to ignoring the Discharge Injunction, it

appears that HFM may also be ignoring the terms of the global settlement entered between the

Debtors and HFM during the chapter 11 cases. That settlement, which resolved the Debtors‘


4

objections to approximately 350 proofs of claim filed by HFM in the chapter 11 cases, also by its

terms explicitly included the claims of any other clients represented by HFM at that time that

had not filed proofs of claim, all in exchange for the payment of $50 million that was to be

allocated by HFM among its clients.

7. This is not the first time that the Reorganized Debtors have engaged HFM

concerning enforcement of the Discharge Injunction. At the end of 2011, the Reorganized

Debtors engaged in correspondence and discussions with HFM with respect to enforcement of

the Discharge Injunction in relation to a different post-confirmation lawsuit alleging injuries

from exposure to diacetyl. After HFM refused to dismiss that lawsuit, the Reorganized Debtors

filed a similar motion to enforce the Discharge Injunction against HFM. That motion was never

adjudicated by the Court because HFM dismissed the Chemtura Defendants from the lawsuit

shortly after the motion was filed.

8. Unbeknownst to the Reorganized Debtors, HFM (through the Locks Law Firm)

had filed the Diacetyl Lawsuits at issue here at the same time as the lawsuit described above.

Because the Diacetyl Lawsuits were never served on the Chemtura Defendants, the Chemtura

Defendants did not become aware of them until the end of March 2012. From that point

forward, the Reorganized Debtors corresponded and had conversations with the Locks Law Firm

and HFM requesting dismissal of the Diacetyl Lawsuits for violating the Discharge Injunction.

Despite HFM‘s prior knowledge of the Reorganized Debtors‘ position concerning the Discharge

Injunction, neither HFM nor the Locks Law Firm has presented any arguments to the

Reorganized Debtors that the Discharge Injunction does not apply to the Diacetyl Lawsuits. Nor

has HFM provided any documents demonstrating that the Claimants are not subject to the prior

settlement with the Debtors. Instead, the Reorganized Debtors‘ inquiries have been largely


5

ignored. Ultimately, HFM and the Locks Law Firm served Chemtura with a summons and

complaint in each of the Diacetyl Lawsuits, leaving Chemtura no choice but to invoke the

protection of the Court.

9. As set forth more fully below, there is sufficient information in the record and on

the face of the complaints in the Diacetyl Lawsuits for the Court to find, as a matter of law, that

the Debtors‘ publication notice of the bar date provided each of the Claimants with sufficient due

process of law. Therefore, the Court should enforce the Discharge Injunction against the

Claimants by granting this motion. In the alternative, the Court may grant this motion on the

basis that the Claimants have failed to satisfy their burden of proof in challenging the discharge

of their claims under the Plan.

JURISDICTION

10. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and

1334. This matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

11. Venue is proper in the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.

12. The bases for the relief requested herein are sections 105(a), 524(a), and 1141(d)

of title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C §§ 101-1532 (the ―Bankruptcy Code‖), and Rule

3020(d) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the ―Bankruptcy Rules‖).3

3 This motion complies with the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 7001, which generally requires that requests

for injunctive relief be brought by adversary proceeding, because this motion seeks to enforce a pre-existing

injunction. See Solow v. Kalikow (In re Kalikow), 602 F.3d 82, 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (upholding district court

determination that enforcement of release, discharge, and injunctive provisions of chapter 11 plan did not

require an adversary proceeding); Texaco Inc. v. Sanders (In re Texaco, Inc.), 182 B.R. 937, 945 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y. 1995) (―Rule 7001 simply does not provide that a motion to enforce must be brought by adversary

proceeding.‖).


6

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. The Debtors’ Chapter 11 Filing And Their Efforts To Address Potential Diacetyl

Liabilities

A. The Diacetyl Liabilities In The Context Of The Chapter 11 Cases

13. On March 18, 2009 (the ―Petition Date‖), the domestic Debtors filed voluntary

petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.4 Before the Petition Date, as the

Court is aware, Chemtura Canada produced diacetyl, a butter flavoring ingredient that was

widely used in the food industry before 2005. From 1982 to 2005, Chemtura Canada

manufactured and sold diacetyl to certain customers in the United States. From 1998 to 2005,

Chemtura acted as Chemtura Canada‘s intermediary, purchasing the diacetyl from Chemtura

Canada and then selling it to customers in the United States.

14. In 2001, some food industry factory workers began alleging that exposure to

diacetyl and other flavorings caused respiratory illness. Certain product liability actions later

filed in the United States alleged that diacetyl and the other flavorings were defectively designed

and manufactured, and that the flavoring manufacturers and distributors had failed to properly

warn end-users of the dangers of exposure to diacetyl. As of the Petition Date, Chemtura and

Chemtura Canada faced approximately 15 filed diacetyl lawsuits, involving approximately 50

plaintiffs, alleging that exposure to diacetyl caused them respiratory injuries.

15. Because of the emerging nature of diacetyl tort litigation and the existence of a

small number of relatively substantial verdicts against other defendants, it appeared possible that

diacetyl-related claims could, in the aggregate, represent a meaningful block of claims against

Chemtura that might impact recoveries and affect the development of a chapter 11 plan of

4 On August 8, 2010, Chemtura Canada filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy

Code. By order dated August 9, 2010, the Court ordered that all diacetyl-related proofs of claim filed against

the Debtors also be deemed filed against Chemtura Canada [Dkt. No. 3535].


7

reorganization. In the overall posture of the chapter 11 cases for Chemtura and its affiliates, the

valuation of tort and environmental claims was one piece of a complicated puzzle that needed to

be assembled in order to determine who was entitled to distributions and how much. As a result,

Chemtura devoted significant efforts during its restructuring to determining the scope of its

potential diacetyl liabilities, both in terms of number of plaintiffs and the overall potential

aggregate claim value.

B. The Diacetyl TRO And Discussion Of The Latency Period

16. On June 17, 2009, before Chemtura Canada had sought chapter 11 protection,

Chemtura brought an adversary proceeding seeking a temporary restraining order (―TRO‖) that

would stay all pending personal injury cases involving diacetyl claims against either Chemtura

Canada or Citrus & Allied Essences, Ltd. (―Citrus‖), which had been the primary distributor of

diacetyl for Chemtura Canada and Chemtura. Several diacetyl claimants opposed Chemtura‘s

TRO request. Asserting that a TRO was unnecessary, the claimants advanced the argument,

among others, that ―it is it is unlikely there will be many future Diacetyl claims because few

workers have been exposed to Diacetyl, its use has been discontinued, and the latency period for

lung disease from Diacetyl is very short (i.e., as little as five months).‖ (See Diacetyl Claimants’

Opposition to Debtors’ Order to Show Cause Seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction Staying the Prosecution of Their State Law Products Liability Claims

Against Non-Debtor Chemtura Canada Corporation and Non-Debtor Citrus and Allied

Essences, Ltd. (Adv. Proc. No. 09-01282) [Dkt. No. 15] at 3; see also Decl. of Greg Coolidge

Submitted with Diacetyl Claimants’ Reply Memorandum for Judicial Notice in Support of the

TRO Opposition (Adv. Proc. No. 09-01282 [Dkt. No. 18] at ¶8 (―Compared to many


8

occupational diseases which have lengthy latency periods of fifteen to forty years, the latency

period for Diacetyl-induced Bronchiolitis Obliterans is very short.‖))5

17. On June 23, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered a TRO enjoining the prosecution

of the pending diacetyl litigation against Chemtura Canada, Citrus, and Ungerer & Co., another

distributor, pending a hearing on Chemtura‘s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin such

litigation. (Adv. Proc. 09-01282(REG) [Dkt. No. 29])

18. The parties eventually agreed to extend the stay under the TRO to coincide with a

determination of the District Court on Chemtura‘s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) for

entry of an order transferring to the District Court all diacetyl cases pending against Chemtura,

Chemtura Canada, and/or Citrus. The District Court ultimately granted Chemtura‘s motion on

January 22, 2010, with the result that all the cases would be tried in a single forum.

II. The Court’s Approval Of The Debtors’ Comprehensive Bar Date Noticing Program

Over The Objection Of Certain Diacetyl Claimants Represented By HFM

19. In the summer of 2009, at approximately the same time as the TRO proceedings,

the Debtors developed a comprehensive bar date noticing program carefully calibrated to reach

known and unknown creditors through a combination of direct mailing and publication of

general and ―site-specific‖ notices. As described below, the site-specific notices were different

from ―standard‖ bar date notices. The Debtors used the site-specific notices to create a more

extensive noticing program than that typically used in chapter 11 cases, and in doing so followed

the lead of other chemical company debtors, such as Solutia Inc. and Tronox Incorporated, who

had developed enhanced bar date noticing programs to address their potential tort liabilities. The

5 The Debtors noted in their briefing in support of a preliminary injunction that future diacetyl claimants would

likely argue that diacetyl-related illnesses have a long latency period. (Memorandum of Law in Further Support

of Chemtura Corporation’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Staying the Diacetyl Litigation and Future

Diacetyl Actions Against Chemtura Canada Corporation, Citrus & Allied Essences, Ltd. and Ungerer &

Company (Adv. Proc. 09-01282 [Dkt. No. 85] at 6.))


9

Debtors‘ site-specific notices were designed to provide focused information to potential tort

plaintiffs in known geographical locations associated with potential environmental or chemical

exposure. The potential tort plaintiffs for whom the notices were intended included persons who

had been exposed to diacetyl, as well as persons who had been exposed to asbestos, vinyl

chloride, coal tar pitch, benzene, and certain other chemicals allegedly produced by the Debtors,

to the extent that geographical locations were known to be associated with potential or alleged

exposure.

20. On August 4, 2009, the Debtors filed a motion seeking the Court‘s approval of

their bar date noticing program. (Dkt. No. 872.) In that motion, the Debtors proposed, among

other things, more than 25 site-specific notices that explicitly addressed potential diacetyl

exposure, explaining in simple language that diacetyl was used by food flavoring companies to

make butter flavoring and identifying certain plants at which workers may have come into

contact with diacetyl. The proposed site-specific diacetyl notices specifically informed people

that they might have a claim under various legal theories if they were exposed to diacetyl,

acetoin, and/or acetaldehyde and such exposure ―directly or indirectly caused injury that

becomes apparent either now or in the future.‖ The notices specifically informed claimants that

they needed to file a proof of claim by the bar date in order to preserve any such claim alleging

diacetyl-related injury. (Dkt. No. 872, Ex. D.)

21. On August 12, 2009, diacetyl claimants represented by HFM filed a limited

objection to the Debtors‘ bar date motion (the ―HFM Bar Date Objection‖). (Dkt. No. 914.)

In the limited objection, HFM argued -- despite the site-specific and diacetyl-specific noticing

program that the Debtors had provided -- that ―the rush to set a present bar date for all potential

diacetyl product injury claims in reliance upon vague general publication notice fails to provide


10

adequate due process and appears intended to slam the door on prospective claimants before the

claimants can even discover that the door exists.‖ (HFM Bar Date Objection at 2.) HFM also

argued that the Debtors‘ noticing program for unknown creditors was not reasonably calculated

to inform potential diacetyl claimants of the need to file a proof of claim, especially those who

had not manifested injury as of the bar date. In this argument, HFM relied heavily on the

Waterman Steamship case. (HFM Bar Date Objection at 10-11 (citing Waterman S.S. Corp. v.

Aguiar (In re Waterman S.S. Corp.), 157 B.R. 220, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 1993))).

22. The Debtors filed a reply to the HFM Bar Date Objection on August 14, 2009.

(Dkt. No. 941.) In the reply, the Debtors pointed out that their chapter 11 cases were not ―mass

tort‖ chapter 11 cases and that it was not necessary at that time for the Court to determine

whether supposed ―future‖ claims of plaintiffs – should any arise – would be cut off by the bar

date notice. The Debtors also pointed out, however, that other diacetyl claimants had previously

argued it was unlikely that there would be future claims because of the short latency period for

manifestation of the injuries being claimed. (Id. at 3.) The Debtors further argued that the site-

specific diacetyl notices, which had been overlooked by HFM in its objection, were more than

adequate to satisfy due process requirements and any other applicable legal standards. (Id. at 6-

10.)

23. On August 17, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the Debtors‘ bar date motion

during which the diacetyl claimants continued to press their objection. At that hearing, when

counsel for the Debtors explained the proposed comprehensive noticing including publication of

site-specific diacetyl-related notices as described in paragraphs 19 and 20 above, the Court


11

observed, ―I think you needed to [do that,] to avoid a Waterman problem and to make your bar

date stick.‖ (See Transcript of Record at 12, Aug. 17, 2009.)6

24. After lengthy argument at the August 17th

hearing, the Court approved the

Debtors‘ bar date noticing program over HFM‘s objection, stating that:

It was important to me that the debtors go beyond notice to persons who

had actually sued them or even to their counsel and to go beyond

generalized national publication. That‘s why I welcomed their proposal to

provide specific supplemental notice geographically focused to areas

where there might be diacetyl claims and the debtors‘ efforts to make

disclosure in plain language of facts that would help perspective [spelling

error in transcript] claimants ascertain whether they might have a claim.

(Id. at 52.) In approving the Debtors‘ bar date program, the Court also required that the Debtors

add to their proposed notice a sentence in Spanish advising where a translation of the notice may

be obtained and make reasonable accommodations for particular language revisions to the

notices or additional recipients of the notices as may be suggested by HFM. (Id. at 55-56.)

25. On August 21, 2009, the Court entered an order approving the Debtors‘ bar date

noticing program and establishing October 30, 2009 (the ―Bar Date‖) as the deadline for each

person or entity asserting a claim against the Debtors to file a proof of claim against the specific

Debtor as to which the claim is asserted. (Dkt. No. 992.)

26. In accordance with the Court‘s ruling to make reasonable accommodations to the

bar date notice recipients, the Debtors agreed to add, at the request of HFM, 83 additional

manufacturing site locations to their diacetyl site-specific notices. Importantly, these additional

locations specifically included the Firmenich Facility.

27. On October 9, 2009, the Debtors‘ notice and claims agent filed an affidavit

confirming that publication of notice of the bar date – including the site specific notice for the

6 A copy of the August 17, 2009 transcript is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.


12

Firmenich Facility – had been completed consistent with the terms of the August 21, 2009 bar

date order. (Dkt. No. 1205.)7

28. In response to the Debtors‘ comprehensive noticing of the Bar Date, the Debtors

received 373 non-duplicative proofs of claim related to diacetyl, more than ninety percent of

which were filed on behalf of individuals represented by HFM. Notably, five of the 373 non-

duplicative proofs of claim were filed by HFM on behalf of individuals who worked at the

Firmenich Facility.

III. The Debtors’ Settlement Of Diacetyl Claims Held By Persons Represented By HFM

29. After the Bar Date passed, the Debtors worked to estimate the potential liability of

all of the diacetyl proofs of claim on a macroeconomic level. Concurrent with those efforts, the

Debtors also engaged in arm‘s-length settlement negotiations with HFM acting on behalf of its

group of clients with diacetyl claims. Ultimately, the settlement negotiations were successful,

and the Debtors filed a motion with the Court on July 29, 2010 to approve a settlement

agreement between HFM and the Debtors (the ―HFM Settlement‖). (Dkt. No. 3420.) The

HFM Settlement resolved the 347 diacetyl claims filed by HFM and all claims by anyone

represented by HFM as of the effective date of the settlement, even if those represented

claimants had not filed a proof of claim, all in exchange for the payment of $50 million that was

to be divided by HFM among its clients. As noted above, the diacetyl claimants represented by

HFM included at least five individuals who alleged injuries based on exposure to diacetyl at the

Firmenich Facility. By order dated, September 1, 2010, the Court approved the HFM

Settlement. (Dkt. No. 3738.) The HFM Settlement became effective on November 11, 2010, the

7 For the convenience of the Court, the Reorganized Debtors have attached as Exhibit D hereto a copy of the

diacetyl site-specific publication notice with respect to the Firmenich Facility and the corresponding excerpt

from the affidavit of publication with respect to that notice.


13

first business day after Chemtura‘s chapter 11 plan of reorganization was consummated, as

described below.

IV. Confirmation Of The Debtors’ Chapter 11 Plan, Post-Effective Date Enforcement

Of The Discharge Injunction, And The Claimants’ Filing Of The Diacetyl Lawsuits

Against The Chemtura Defendants

A. Confirmation and Discharge

30. The Court entered the Confirmation Order on November 3, 2010 and the Plan was

consummated on November 10, 2010 (the ―Effective Date‖). (Dkt. No. 4409.) The

Confirmation Order implements the discharge and injunctive provisions set forth in Sections

11.7 and 11.8 of the Plan. Paragraph 141 of the Confirmation Order provides that:

Pursuant to section 1141(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, and except as

otherwise specifically provided in the Plan, the distributions, rights

and treatment that are provided in the Plan shall be in full and final

satisfaction, settlement, release and discharge, effective as of the

Effective Date, of all Claims, Interests and Causes of Action of any

nature whatsoever, including any interest accrued on Claims or

Interests from and after the Petition Date, whether known or

unknown, against, liabilities of, Liens on, obligations of, rights

against and Interests in, the Debtors or any of their assets or

properties, regardless of whether any property shall have been

distributed or retained pursuant to the Plan on account of such

Claims and Interests, including demands, liabilities and Causes of

Action that arose before the Effective Date, any contingent or non-

contingent liability on account of representations or warranties

issued on or before the Effective Date, and all debts of the kind

specified in sections 502(g), 502(h) or 502(i) of the Bankruptcy

Code, in each case whether or not: (a) a Proof of Claim or Interest

based upon such Claim, debt, right or Interest is filed or deemed

filed pursuant to section 501 of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) a Claim

or Interest based upon such Claim, debt, right or Interest is

Allowed pursuant to section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code; or (c)

the holder of such a Claim or Interest has accepted the Plan.

Except as otherwise provided herein, any default by the Debtors or

their Affiliates with respect to any Claim or Interest that existed

before or on account of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases shall be

deemed cured on the Effective Date. This Order shall be a judicial

determination of the discharge of all Claims and Interests subject

to the Effective Date occurring, except as otherwise expressly

provided in the Plan.


14

(Confirmation Order at ¶ 141.)

31. Further, paragraph 144 of the Confirmation Order provides, in relevant part,

ALL ENTITIES WHO HAVE HELD, HOLD OR MAY HOLD

CLAIMS OR INTERESTS THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED

PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 11.2, 11.3 OR 11.4, OR

DISCHARGED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11.7 OR ARE

SUBJECT TO EXCULPATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 11.6,

ARE PERMANENTLY ENJOINED, FROM AND AFTER THE

EFFECTIVE DATE, FROM TAKING ANY OF THE

FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (A) COMMENCING OR

CONTINUING IN ANY MANNER ANY ACTION OR OTHER

PROCEEDING OF ANY KIND ON ACCOUNT OF OR IN

CONNECTION WITH OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH

CLAIMS OR INTERESTS . . . (D) COMMENCING OR

CONTINUING IN ANY MANNER ANY ACTION OR OTHER

PROCEEDING OF ANY KIND ON ACCOUNT OF OR IN

CONNECTION WITH OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH

CLAIMS OR INTERESTS RELEASED, SETTLED OR

DISCHARGED PURSUANT TO THE PLAN.

(Confirmation Order at ¶ 144 (emphasis in original).)

B. Prior Enforcement Of The Discharge Injunction Against HFM

32. On September 9, 2011, a post-confirmation lawsuit captioned Victorino Huerta et

al. v. Aldrich Chemical Company, Inc., et al., No. 2011-L-009461, was filed against several

defendants, including the Chemtura Defendants, on account of claims arising from alleged

exposure to diacetyl. HFM was co-counsel to the plaintiffs in that lawsuit. The Reorganized

Debtors engaged in correspondence and discussions with HFM concerning the Discharge

Injunction with respect to that lawsuit, but HFM initially was unwilling to dismiss the Chemtura

Defendants from the lawsuit.

33. On December 29, 2011, the Reorganized Debtors filed the Reorganized Debtors’

Motion for an Order Enforcing the Discharge Injunction Under the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Plan of

Reorganization (Dkt. No. 5633). In response to the motion, HFM agreed to voluntarily dismiss


15

the Chemtura Defendants from the Huerta lawsuit. The Reorganized Debtors subsequently

withdrew their motion on January 18, 2012. (Dkt. No. 5655.)

C. The New HFM Diacetyl Claims Asserted In The Diacetyl Lawsuits

34. Unbeknownst to the Reorganized Debtors, days after the Huerta lawsuit was filed,

on or around September 12, 2011, the Claimants filed the Diacetyl Lawsuits against the

Chemtura Defendants and others, on account of claims allegedly arising from exposure to

diacetyl while working at the Firmenich Facility for different periods starting from 1984 to 2000

and continuing to 2011 (collectively, the ―Claims‖). Unlike the Huerta lawsuit, the Chemtura

Defendants were not served with a summons and complaint in any of the Diacetyl Lawsuits

when they were filed.

35. Chemtura learned about the Diacetyl Lawsuits on or about March 26, 2012. On

April 3, 2012, the Reorganized Debtors wrote a letter to the Locks Law Firm, as counsel of

record, to demand dismissal of the Diacetyl Lawsuits because they violated the Discharge

Injunction.8 On April 19, 2012, Karl Friedrich of the Locks Law Firm acknowledged receipt of

the Reorganized Debtors‘ April 3 letter and advised the Reorganized Debtors that he had

forwarded the letter to his Missouri co-counsel. Mr. Friedrich later informed the Reorganized

Debtors that the Locks Law Firm was local counsel for HFM and that HFM was weighing a

response.

36. Counsel for the Reorganized Debtors subsequently spoke with HFM directly to

request dismissal of the Diacetyl Lawsuits for the same reasons as HFM had dismissed the

Huerta lawsuit. On May 31, 2012, HFM sent to the Reorganized Debtors a scant letter – without

providing any supporting documentation – asserting that HFM was retained by each of the

8 A copy of the Reorganized Debtors‘ April 3, 2012 Letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit E.


16

Claimants after the Effective Date.9 HFM did not provide any explanation as to why the

Discharge Injunction did not apply to the Claimants or provide any other information that had

been requested by the Reorganized Debtors.

37. On June 4, 2012, the Reorganized Debtors wrote to HFM reiterating their prior

verbal requests and requesting a detailed legal and factual explanation, along with all supporting

documents, including medical records, supporting HFM‘s apparent position that the claims in the

Diacetyl Lawsuits were not subject to the Discharge Injunction.10

38. Following the Reorganized Debtors‘ June 4 letter, HFM verbally informed the

Reorganized Debtors that they were not entitled to any more information than what had been

provided already. On or about July 9, 2012, Chemtura was served with a summons and

complaint in each of the Diacetyl Lawsuits. Accordingly, the Reorganized Debtors have filed

this motion to enforce the Discharge Injunction.

RELIEF REQUESTED

39. By this motion, the Reorganized Debtors seek entry of an order pursuant to

sections 105(a), 524, and 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 3020(d) enforcing

the Discharge Injunction as to the Claimants and their counsel by:

(a) finding that the Claims asserted in the Diacetyl Lawsuits arose before the

Petition Date and were discharged pursuant to the Plan;

(b) directing the Claimants and their counsel to immediately dismiss the

Chemtura Defendants from the Diacetyl Lawsuits; and

9 A copy of HFM‘s May 31, 2012 letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit F.

10 A copy of the Reorganized Debtors‘ June 4, 2012 Letter is annexed as Exhibit G.


17

(c) declaring that the Claimants and their counsel are barred and enjoined

from attempting to seek monetary damages or other relief against the Chemtura

Defendants with respect to any of the Claims.11

BASIS FOR RELIEF

The Court Should Enforce The Discharge Injunction Against The Claimants.

40. Confirmation of a plan of reorganization provides a discharge to a debtor that

extinguishes all debts and claims against the debtor that arose prior to confirmation. 11 U.S.C.

§ 1141(d)(1). Section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the discharge afforded to

a debtor ―operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the

employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any such debt . . . .‖ 11 U.S.C.

§ 524(a)(2). Consistent with these provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, paragraphs 141-147 of

the Confirmation Order provide for the discharge of all claims against the Debtors or the

Reorganized Debtors to the fullest extent permitted by the Bankruptcy Code, and permanently

enjoin any actions to collect on account of such discharged claims. See supra ¶¶30-31.

41. A claimant challenging a debtor‘s discharge bears the burden of proof regardless

of the procedural posture by which such challenge arises. See Waterman S.S. Corp., 200 B.R.

770, 774-75 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) (noting in the context of an adversary proceeding brought

by the debtor to enforce the discharge injunction that ―[i]f looked at as an objection to discharge,

then it is the complaining entity that has the burden of proof . . . . If this action is looked at as an

objection to claim, however, the burden of proof rests on different parties at different times, but

the ultimate burden of persuasion is always on the claimant.‖). Without relief from the Court,

11

The Reorganized Debtors reserve their rights to seek the imposition of sanctions against the Claimants and their

counsel, including the award of reasonable attorneys‘ fees and costs.


18

judicial actions in violation of the discharge injunction are void ab initio. See 11 U.S.C. §

524(a)(1).

42. As set forth more thoroughly below, the Court has jurisdiction to enforce the

Discharge Injunction in these chapter 11 cases. In addition, each of the Claims in the Diacetyl

Lawsuits arose against the Chemtura Defendants before the Petition Date and, thus, is subject to

the Discharge Injunction. Further, all of the Claimants received constitutionally sufficient notice

of the bar date (and their potential claims) such that they were enabled and required to assert

their claims in the Debtors‘ chapter 11 cases, just as several other individuals from the Firmenich

Facility did. Accordingly, the Court should grant the Reorganized Debtors‘ motion and enforce

the Discharge Injunction against the Claimants by entering the proposed order annexed hereto as

Exhibit A.

I. The Court Has Jurisdiction To Enforce The Discharge Injunction.

43. A bankruptcy court has statutory jurisdiction over all matters ―related to‖ the

chapter 11 cases, and such jurisdiction extends beyond confirmation of a chapter 11 plan. 28

U.S.C. §§ 157, 1334; The LTV Corp., LTV v. AM Gne. Corp. (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 201 B.R.

48, 64 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff’d in part, 213 B.R. 633 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (―Contrary to

Defendants‘ contention, bankruptcy court jurisdiction is not ‗constricted‘ by confirmation of a

debtor‘s plan of reorganization.‖). Courts also have inherent jurisdiction to interpret and enforce

prior orders. See Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 239 (1934); Back v. LTV Corp., LTV (In

re Chateaugay Corp.), 213 B.R. 633, 637-38 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). It is well-established that ―[a]

Bankruptcy Court‘s jurisdiction continues post-confirmation to protect its confirmation decree,

to prevent interference with the execution of a confirmed plan, and to otherwise aid in its

operation.‖ In re Spiegel, Inc., No. 03-11540, 2007 WL 201112, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23,


19

2007) (citing In re Chateaugay Corp., 201 B.R. at 64). A bankruptcy court‘s jurisdiction

following confirmation of a plan of reorganization, however, also depends on the terms set forth

in the reorganization plan and confirmation order. See In re Chateaugay Corp., 201 B.R. at 64-

65.

44. Here, Article XIV of the Plan provides for the broadest possible retention of

jurisdiction by the Court, including jurisdiction to:

7. adjudicate, decide or resolve any and all matters related to

section 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code;

. . .

14. issue injunctions, enter and implement other orders or take

such other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to restrain

interference by any entity with Consummation or enforcement of

the Plan;

15. resolve any cases, controversies, suits, disputes or Causes

of Action with respect to the discharge, releases, injunctions,

exculpations, indemnifications and other provisions contained in

Article XI and enter such as may be necessary or appropriate to

implement such releases, injunctions and other provisions;

. . .

26. hear any other matter not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy

Code.

(Plan at Article XIV.) In addition, paragraph 150 of the Confirmation Order

provides:

Notwithstanding the entry of this Order and the occurrence of the

Effective Date, on and after the Effective Date, the Bankruptcy

Court shall retain such jurisdiction over the Chapter 11 Cases and

all matters, arising out of or related to, the Chapter 11 Cases and

the Plan including jurisdiction with respect to those items

enumerated in Article XIV of the Plan, which are incorporated

herein by reference.

(Confirmation Order at ¶ 150.)


20

45. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, the Court clearly has jurisdiction to

enforce the Discharge Injunction against the Claimants.

II. The Claimants’ Claims Arose Before The Petition Date.

46. Section 101(5)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code defines ―claim‖ as ―a right to payment,

whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent,

matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured . . . .‖

11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) (emphasis added); see also H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 309 (1977),

reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6266; S. Rep. No. 95-989, at 21, reprinted in 1978

U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5807 (noting that ―[b]y this broadest possible definition [of the term ‗claim‘]

. . . the bill contemplates that all legal obligations of the debtor, no matter how remote or

contingent, will be able to be dealt with in the bankruptcy case . . . [and] permits the broadest

possible relief in the bankruptcy court.‖). This definition is ―designed to ensure that ‗all legal

obligations of the debtor, no matter how remote or contingent, will be able to be dealt with in the

bankruptcy case.‘‖ Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs. v. Jensen (In re Jensen), 995 F.2d 925, 929 (9th

Cir. 1993) (emphasis omitted) (citations omitted). This broad definition:

performs a vital role in the reorganization process by requiring, in

conjunction with the bar date, that all those with a potential call on

the debtor‘s assets, provided the call in at least some circumstances

could give rise to a suit for payment, come before the

reorganization court so that those demands can be allowed or

disallowed and their priority and dischargeability determined.

Pearl-Phil GMT (Far East) Ltd. v. Caldor Corp., 266 B.R. 575, 580 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citation

omitted).

47. Courts in this jurisdiction have held that claims for injuries resulting from

prepetition exposure to products alleged to cause tort injuries are prepetition claims, entirely

without regard to when the claimant is diagnosed with a potential injury or actually files a


21

lawsuit against the debtor. See, e.g., In re Chateaugay Corp., 2009 WL 367490, at *6 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2009) (holding that the plaintiffs‘ asbestosis claims arose ―prepetition when

the decedents were exposed‖); In re Quigley Co., Inc., 383 B.R. 19, 27 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008)

(―If the Asbestos PI Claimant was exposed to asbestos before the [] petition date, he or she holds

a ‗claim‘ . . . [and] the claimant‘s status in bankruptcy does not depend on the manifestation of

the injury . . . .‖); see also Holmes v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 745 F. Supp. 2d 176, 196

(E.D.N.Y. 2000) (holding ―‗[a] claim arises, for the purposes of discharge in bankruptcy, at ‗the

time of the events giving rise to the claim, not at the time when the plaintiff is first able to file

suit on the claim.‘‖) (citations omitted).

48. Here, all of the Claimants in the Diacetyl Lawsuits allege injuries resulting from

exposure to diacetyl while working at the Firmenich Facility during various time periods starting

from 1984 to 2000 and continuing to 2011. (See Exs. B1-B9 at ¶3.) Because the Chemtura

Defendants ceased manufacturing and/or selling diacetyl in 2005, all of the Claims in the

Diacetyl Lawsuits, insofar as they relate to diacetyl allegedly manufactured or sold by the

Chemtura Defendants, arose before the Petition Date. Therefore, the Claims were discharged in

the chapter 11 cases as a result of the Court‘s confirmation of the Plan.

III. The Claimants Were Unknown Creditors Who Received Constitutionally Sufficient

Notice Of The Bar Date By Publication.

49. The discharge under the Bankruptcy Code ―presumes that all creditors bound by

the plan have been given sufficient notice to satisfy due process.‖ See Daewoo Int’l. (Am.) Corp.

Creditor Trust v. SSTS Am. Corp., 2003 WL 21355214, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2003); see also

Grant v. U.S. Home Corp. (In re U.S.H. Corp. of New York), 223 B.R. 654, 658 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y. 1998). Generally, such notice must be ―reasonably calculated‖ to reach interested


22

parties, convey necessary information and permit a reasonable time to respond. Mullane v. Cent.

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).

50. Where creditors are unknown to a debtor,12

publication notice of the bar date in

the bankruptcy case is generally sufficient to satisfy due process. As explained by the United

States Supreme Court in Mullane in the context of publication notice, ―employment of an

indirect and even probably futile means of notification is all that the situation permits and creates

no constitutional bar to a final decree foreclosing their rights.‖ Id. at 317; see also DePippo v.

Kmart Corp., 335 B.R. 290, 296 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (―It is well-settled that when a creditor is

‗unknown‘ to the debtor[,] publication notice of the claims bar date is adequate constructive

notice sufficient to satisfy due process requirements . . . .‖); In re Chateaugay Corp., 2009 WL

367490 at *5 (―[F]or unknown creditors whose identities or claims are not reasonably

ascertainable, and for creditors who hold only conceivable, conjectural or speculative claims,

constructive notice of the bar date by publication is sufficient.‖); In re Placid Oil Co., 463 B.R.

803, 816-17 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2012) (same).

51. Therefore, courts have routinely held that unknown prepetition claims are barred

by the discharge injunction from being asserted so long as sufficient notice of the bar date by

publication was given. See, e.g., In re Chateaugay Corp., 2009 WL 367490 at *5 (holding that

asbestos plaintiffs who did not manifest any sign of disease during the debtors‘ chapter 11 cases

were unknown creditors who received sufficient notice of the bar date by publication); In re

Union Hosp. Ass’n of the Bronx, 226 B.R. 134, 138-39 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1998) (holding that

creditors‘ indemnification and contribution claims relating to tort actions were discharged in

12

An ‗unknown‘ creditor is one whose interests ―are either conjectural or future or, although they could be

discovered upon investigation, do not in due course of business come to knowledge [of the debtor].‖ Mullane v.

Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. at 317.


23

prior chapter 11 cases and that publication notice of the bar date in those cases satisfied due

process); In re Placid Oil Company, 463 B.R. at 817 (holding that published notice of the bar

date in the Wall Street Journal was reasonable notice to unknown asbestos creditors thereby

satisfying due process).

52. This is not to say that just any means of publishing a bar date notice will satisfy

due process. The publication notice still must be reasonably calculated to reach interested

creditors. For example, on the facts presented in Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Aguiar (In re

Waterman S.S. Corp.), 141 B.R. 552 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992), vacated, 157 B.R. 220 (S.D.N.Y.

1993), Judge Conrad found that the debtor‘s publication notice was not sufficient to bar certain

―future‖ asbestos claimants from asserting their claims:

First, the notice was not reasonably calculated to apprise these

claimants of the pendency of this bankruptcy. Second, no future

Asbestosis Claimant could be deemed to have relinquished

substantive rights when, even if that individual had read the

―notice,‖ those individuals would have remained completely

unaware that their substantive rights were affected.

Id. at 558. The District Court affirmed a portion of the Court‘s ruling, stating that ―the

Bankruptcy Court correctly held that the potential future claims of those who had not manifested

any detectable signs of disease when notice of the bar date was given, were not discharged in the

bankruptcy proceeding.‖ Waterman S.S. Corp., 157 B.R. at 222. Significantly, however, the

District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court‘s across-the-board determination that the debtor‘s

noticing scheme for the bar date was inadequate for all asserted future asbestos claims. Instead,

the District Court instructed the Bankruptcy Court to analyze the reasonableness of the debtor‘s

notice in light of different recipients of the notices, such as those who may have already

manifested symptoms of asbestos disease. Id. at 222.


24

53. Thus, the Waterman case sets guidelines for what kinds of publication notice may

satisfy due process for unknown claimants who are exposed to substances prepetition but do not

manifest injuries until after the bar date has passed. Importantly, however, the Waterman case

does not establish a blanket rule that no publication notice will provide effective notice to

unknown claimants under any circumstances. Applying the Waterman standard requires an

analysis of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In this case, the Court has already

expressly approved the bar date noticing program in the context of the Waterman ruling itself.

(See Transcript of Record at 12, 52, Aug. 17, 2009).

54. Here, unlike in Waterman, the Debtors developed an extensive bar date noticing

process that included inserting specific diacetyl-related notices in local publications in known

areas of potential exposure in addition to a generalized bar date notice. The site-specific notices

contained clear disclosure that diacetyl was used in food flavoring companies and informed

persons that if exposure to diacetyl ―directly or indirectly caused injury that becomes apparent

either now or in the future, you may have a claim under various legal theories for damages.‖

(Ex. D). The Court explicitly recognized that the Debtors‘ creation of these site-specific notices

was something they needed to do in order to ―avoid a Waterman problem and to make your bar

date stick‖ and approved the Debtors‘ noticing program over the objection of HFM, noting

particularly the Debtors‘ efforts to actually reach prospective claimants with their notices. See

supra ¶¶23-26.

55. Moreover, as a result of HFM‘s objection to the Debtors‘ bar date noticing

program, the Debtors added to their bar date noticing program a site-specific notice for the

Firmenich Facility – the facility where all of the Claimants at issue allege exposure to diacetyl in

the Diacetyl Lawsuits. The fact that five individuals subsequently filed proofs of claim asserting


25

injuries allegedly caused from exposure to diacetyl at the Firmenich Facility demonstrates the

sufficiency of notice of the bar date for individuals who worked at that facility.

56. Consistent with the legal standards articulated in Mullane and Waterman, the

Court considered the Debtors‘ bar date notice under all of the facts and circumstances presented

in the Debtors‘ chapter 11 cases. Thus, in determining that publication in approximately 60

newspapers in relation to 126 manufacturing sites and in two languages was sufficient rather than

requiring site-specific noticing for more than 3,600 sites as requested by HFM and other

plaintiffs‘ law firms, the Court considered the overall context of the chapter 11 cases and the fact

that delay would have impeded the reorganization and potentially reduced the overall recoveries

available for all creditors. As the Court recognized during the bar date hearing, ―this multi-

billion dollar case simply can‘t be run for the convenience or preferences of the diacetyl

claimants.‖ (See Transcript of Record at 56-57, Aug. 17, 2009.).

57. In ruling that the required scope of publication notice should be determined by

taking into account both the need for comprehensive noticing and other exigencies in the chapter

11 case, the Court‘s approach was squarely consistent with that of Judge Lifland in the

Chateaugay case, which is similar to this case in that it was not primarily a toxic tort case and no

future claims representative was appointed. See In re Chateaugay Corp., 2009 WL 367490 at

*5-6 (ruling that asbestos claims were subject to chapter 11 discharge, where exposure occurred

prepetition but injuries manifested post-petition, and the bar date noticing scheme had been

appropriate under the totality of the circumstances of the chapter 11 case).

58. Accordingly, the Reorganized Debtors respectfully submit that the publication of

the site-specific diacetyl notice that identified the Firmenich Facility, in conjunction with the

Debtors‘ entire site-specific diacetyl noticing program and general publication notice of the bar


26

date, satisfied the due process requirement that notice be given to the Claimants, as unknown

diacetyl claimants. Therefore, the motion should be granted.

IV. If The Court Determines That The Publication Notice Was Not Constitutionally

Sufficient For Claimants Who Had Not Manifested Any Injury As Of The Bar Date,

The Claimants Must Still Satisfy Their Burden Of Proof.

A. The Claimants Have Not Provided Any Proof Of Their Injuries.

59. The Reorganized Debtors believe the Court can determine as a matter of law in

light of the cases previously cited that the Debtors‘ publication of the bar date notice, including

the previously described site-specific notice relating to the Firmenich Facility, satisfied due

process with respect to all of the Claimants. The Reorganized Debtors expect, however, that the

Claimants will argue the publication notice was not sufficient and that the Claimants did not

manifest any sign of injury resulting from exposure to diacetyl until after the Effective Date.13

The Claimants would bear the burden of proof in raising such an argument, and have failed to

provide any information that would meet that burden, despite the Reorganized Debtors‘ repeated

invitations for them to do so. In re Waterman S.S. Corp., 200 B.R. at 775 (―[T]he general rule

that when the true facts relating to a dispute are particularly within the knowledge of one party,

then the burden of proving an issue lies with the knowledgeable party.‖).

60. Here, the Reorganized Debtors have requested the type of information that is

plainly within the knowledge of the Claimants—namely the Claimants‘ medical records. HFM

has refused to provide this information. As a result, the Reorganized Debtors have no basis to

believe that any Claimant first experienced symptoms and was diagnosed with a diacetyl-related

injury after the Effective Date. The Reorganized Debtors believe that the Discharge Injunction

13

The Reorganized Debtors note that it seems unlikely that any of the Claimants would first manifest symptoms

of a diacetyl-related disease after the Effective Date given the short latency period for such diseases. See supra

¶22.


27

applies to all of the Claimants. It is the Claimants‘ burden to prove otherwise and they have not

done so.

B. The Claimants Must Prove That Their Claims Were Not Released Under

The HFM Settlement.

61. The HFM Settlement resolved claims by all persons who had been represented by

HFM before the effective date of that agreement (November 11, 2010). In their efforts to

consensually resolve the dispute with the Claimants as to whether the Lawsuit violates the

Discharge Injunction, the Reorganized Debtors asked HFM when its representation of the

Claimants began and for documentation to support HFM‘s position. In its May 31, 2012 letter,

HFM asserts that each of the Claimants did not sign contracts with HFM until after the effective

date of the HFM Settlement. But, HFM has refused to respond to the Reorganized Debtors‘

requests for documents supporting its position, such as copies of the engagement letters for each

of the respective Claimants and copies of calendars or contact logs that would provide factual

support for the asserted initial contact date.

62. The Reorganized Debtors believe the Court has the authority to enforce the HFM

Settlement and determine that the Claims at issue were released under the HFM Settlement in

light of HFM‘s failure to provide any documentation showing otherwise. This determination

would eliminate the need for any inquiry as to due process with respect to the respective

Claimants, unless HFM can prove that the Claimants were not, in fact, represented by HFM

before the effective date of the HFM Settlement.

CONCLUSION

63. For all of the reasons set forth above, the Reorganized Debtors believe that it is

appropriate for the Court to grant the relief requested by this motion and enter the order attached

as Exhibit A hereto enforcing the Discharge Injunction against the Claimants.


28

MOTION PRACTICE

64. This motion includes citations to the applicable rules and statutory authorities

upon which the relief requested herein is predicated and a discussion of their application to this

motion. Accordingly, the Reorganized Debtors submit that this motion satisfies Rule 9013-1(a)

of the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedures for the Southern District of New York.

NOTICE

65. The Reorganized Debtors have provided notice of this motion to: (a) the Office of

the United States Trustee for the Southern District of New York; (b) counsel to the Claimants

(HFM and the Locks Law Firm); and (c) all persons and entities that have formally requested

notice by filing a written request for notice pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002 and the Local

Bankruptcy Rules. In light of the nature of the relief requested, the Reorganized Debtors

respectfully submit that no further notice is necessary.


29

WHEREFORE, the Reorganized Debtors respectfully request that the Court (a) enter an

order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, enforcing the Discharge Injunction;

and (b) grant such other and further relief as is just and proper.

New York, New York /s/ Craig A. Bruens

Dated: July 25, 2012 Richard M. Cieri

Craig A. Bruens




Telephone: (212) 446-4800

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900

- and -

M. Natasha Labovitz


919 Third Avenue


Telephone: (212) 909-6000

Facsimile: (212) 909-6836



Exhibit A

Proposed Order



Response Deadline: August 8, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. (ET)



)

In re: ) Chapter 11

)


)


)

ORDER ENFORCING THE DISCHARGE INJUNCTION

UNDER THE DEBTORS’ CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF REORGANIZATION

Upon the Reorganized Debtors’ Motion for an Order Enforcing the Discharge Injunction

under the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization (the ―Motion‖)1; and consideration of the

Motion and the relief requested therein being a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157

and 1334; and venue being proper before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and

due and proper notice of the Motion having been provided; and it appearing that no other or

further notice need be provided; and the Court having determined that each of the Claims in the

Diacetyl Lawsuits arose before the Petition Date, that each of the Claimants was an unknown

creditor of the Debtors who received sufficient due process to discharge its Claim by the

Debtors‘ publication of a general bar date notice and site-specific diacetyl notices, including a

site-specific notice relating to the Firmenich Facility, and whose claim was settled under the

HFM Settlement, and that there exists just cause for the relief granted herein; and upon the

arguments and testimony presented at the hearing before the Court, and any responses to the

Motion having been withdrawn, resolved or overruled on the merits; and after due deliberation

and sufficient cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Motion.


2

1. The Motion is granted.

2. The Claimants and their counsel shall take all actions necessary to dismiss the

Diacetyl Lawsuits as to the Chemtura Defendants within three days from the date of this Order

and provide the Chemtura Defendants with written confirmation of the dismissal.

3. The Claimants and their counsel are barred and enjoined from attempting to seek

monetary damages or other relief against the Chemtura Defendants with respect to any of the

Claims.

4. The relief granted pursuant to this Order is without prejudice to the Reorganized

Debtors‘ rights to seek the imposition of sanctions against Claimants and their counsel, including

the award of reasonable attorneys‘ fees and costs.

5. The terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and

enforceable upon entry of the Order.

6. The Court retains jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to

the implementation of this Order.

New York, New York

Dated: _________________, 2012 Honorable Robert E. Gerber

United States Bankruptcy Judge


Exhibits B-1 through B-9

Complaints in the Diacetyl Lawsuits


Exhibit B-1

Gabauer Complaint


LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500Cherry Hill, NJ 08002(856) 663-8200Attorneys for PlaintiffBy: Karl Friedrichs

CARL GABAUER SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Plaintiff(s)IDocket No.: MID-L-6517-1 1

V.

CIVIL ACTIONAAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC., CERTROME,INC., dlb/a ADVANCED BIOTECH, et al. ISUMMONS

Defendant(s)

From The State of New Jersey, To the Defendant(s) Named Above:

CHEMTURA CORP.

The plaintiff, named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of New Jersey.The Complaint attached to this summons states the basis for this lawsuit. If you dispute this complaint,you or your attorney must file a written answer or motion and proof of service with the Deputy Clerk ofthe Superior Court in the county listed above within thirty-five (35) days from the date you received thissummons, not counting the date you received it. (The address of each Deputy Clerk of the SuperiorCourt is provided.) If the complaint is one in foreclosure, then you must file your written answer ormotion and proof of service with the Clerk of the Superior Court, Hughes Justice Complex, CN-97 1,Trenton, NJ 08625. A filing fee payable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey and a completed CaseInformation Statement (available from the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court) must accompany youranswer or motion when it is filed. You must also send a copy of your answer or motion to plaintiffsattorney whose name and address appear above, or to plaintiff, if no attorney is named above. Atelephone call will not protect your rights; you must file and serve a written answer or motion (with feeof $135.00 and completed Case Information Statement) if you want the Court to hear your defense.

If you do not file and serve a written answer or motion within thirty-five (35) days, the court mayenter a judgment against you for the relief plaintiff demands, plus interest and costs of suit. If judgmentis entered against you, the Sheriff may seize your money, wages or property to pay all or part of thejudgment.

If you cannot afford an attorney, you may call the Legal Service office in the county where you

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * A7TORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfild Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


live. A list of these offices is provided. If you do not have an attorney and are not eligible for free legalassistance, you may obtain a referral to an attorney by calling one of the Lawyer Referral Services. A listof these numbers is also provided.

Dated: July 5, 2012 /s/ Jennifer M. PerezJENNIFER M. PEREZ, Acting ClerkSuperior Court of New Jersey

Name of Defendant to be Served: CHEMTURA CORP.Illinois Corporation Service

Address of Defendant to be Served: 801 Adlai Stephenson DriveSpringfield, IL 62703

2

LOCKS LAW FIRNILLC * ATTORNVEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


MIDDLESEX VICINAGE CIVIL DIVISION

P 0 BOX 2633

56 PATERSON STREET

NEW BRUNSWICK NJ 08903-2633TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICE

COURT TELEPHONE NO. (732) 519-3728

COURT HOURS

DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

RE: GABAUER CARL VS AAROMA HOLDINGS LLC

DOCKET: MID L -006517 11

THE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: TRACK 3.

DISCOVERY IS 450 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYS

FROM SERVICE ON THlE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS: HON PHILLIP L. PALJEY

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT TEAM 001

AT: (732) 519-3728 EXT 3728.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK IS INAPPROPRIATE YOU MUST FILE A

CERTIFICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FILING OF YOUR PLEADING.

PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE

WITH R.4:5A-2.ATTENTION:

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC

457 HADDONFIELD ROAD

SUITE 500

CHERRY HILL NJ 08002

JUMBURO


Aypendix X1I-BI

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT FOR US YCEKSFIEOL

S(CIS) PAYMENT TYPE: OCK DCG [ICA

Use for initial Law Division CGC O

Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 AMOUNT:

Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c),if information above the black bar is not completed or OVERPAYMENT:

if attorney's signature is not affixed.BACNU ER

ATTORNEYd/PRO SE NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER COUNTY OF VENUE

Karl F rChs, Esquire (856) 663-8200 Middlesex

FFIRM NAME (if applicable)

DCE UBE M naalbe

Locks Law Firm, LLC

OFFICE ADDRESS DOCUMENT TYPE

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 5000 Complaint

Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 JURY DEMAND 9YS 0N

NAME OF PARTY (e.g., John Doe, Plaintiff) CAPTION

CarL Gabauer Carl Gabauer v. Aaroma Holdings, LLC, et al.

CASE TYPE NUMBER IS TH IS A -PROFESSINA MAPATC CASE Ep YES No

(Seerevrse idefor istng)IF YOU HAVE CHECKED'YES,- SEE N.J.S.A. 2AM:A-27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING

606 YOUR OBLIGATION TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.

RELATED CASES PENDING? IF YES, LIST DOCKET NUMBERS

0 YES ~NODO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING NAME OF DEFENDANTS PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPA4,IKNW

ANY PARTIES (arising out of same OYES E@ NOtransaction or occurrence)?

I NON

CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION

DO PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT. IF YES, IS THAT PO

PAST OR RECURRENT RELATIONSHIP CC EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE [I FRIENDINEIGH-BOR F- OTHER (explain)

RELATIONSHIP? D]YES ZINO [I FAMILIAL 0 BUSINESS

DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THISCASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES 0YES 0NOBY THE LOSING PARTY?

USE THIS SPACE TOU ALT h COR TO ANY SPEIA CASE CH CEITIC S THA AY ARN INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATED

DISPOSITON:

[I DO YOU OR YOUR CLIEN NEED ANY IF YES. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE

DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS? OYES 0 No REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION: -

WILL ANINTERPRETER BE NEEDED?ES EgNO IF YES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE: .-

I certify that confidential personal entifiers' ve been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be

redacted from all do* ts submitt in the fure in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)

AORNEY SIGNATURE:

Revised Effective 9/2009, CN 10517


CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENTS. (CIS)

Use for initial pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1

CASE TYPES (Choose one and enter number of case type in appropriate space on the reverse side.)

Track I-1-150 days' discovery151 NAME CHANGE175 FORFEITURE302 TENANCY399 REAL PROPERTY (other th~an Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Complex Commercial or Construction)

502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only)

505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (INCLUDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS)

506 PIP COVERAGE510 LIMorULIM CLAIM511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT512 LEMON LAW801 SUMMARY ACTION802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION)

999 OTHER (Briefly describe nature of action)

Track 11 -300 days' discovery305 CONSTRUCTION509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD)

599 CONTRACT/COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION603 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY605 PERSONAL INJURY610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PROPERTY DAMAGE699 TORT - OTHER

Track Ill - 460 days' discovery005 CIVIL RIGHTS301 CONDEMNATION802 ASSAULT AND BATTERY604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE606 PRODUCT LIABILITY607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE608 TOXIC TORT609 DEFAMATION616 WH-ISTLEBLOWER I CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES

617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION616 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAO) CASES620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Track IV - Active Case Management by Individual Judge 1 450 days' discovery

156 ENVIRONMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION

303 MT. LAUREL508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION514 INSURANCE FRAUD701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

Centrally Managed Litigation (Track IV)280 Zelnorrn285 Stryker Trident Hip Implants

M ass Tort (Track IV) 29GDLNU

248 CIBA GEIGY 29GDLNU

268 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HAT) 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL

271 ACCUTANE 282 FOSAMAX

272 BEXTRA/CELEBREX 283 DIGITEK

274 RISPERDAUJSEROQUE.IZYPRX 284 NUVARING

275 ORTHO EVRA 286 LEVAQUIN

277 MAHW/AH TOXIC DUMP SITE 601 ASBESTOS

278 ZOMETA/AREDIA 619 VIOXX

If you believe this case requires a track other than that provided abo~'e, please Indicate the reason on Side 1,

In the space under "Case Characteristics.'Please check off each applicable caPuatvteagoctonry:le5

LIVerbal Threshold F uaieCasAto ~ te5

Revised Effective 9/2009, CN 105 17


LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC ' r

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 '. 2)~

(856) 6663-8200Attorneys for PlaintiffBy: Karl Friedrichs, Esquire

CARL GABAUER ) SUPERIOR COURT OF) NEW JERSEY) LAW DIVISION:

Plaintiff, ) MIDDLESEX COUNTY

) DOCKET NO: L ( Ffl

V.)) CIVIL ACTION

AAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,CENTROME, INC., dlb/a ADVANCED BIOTECHM COMPLAINT AND JURY

BASF CORPORATION, DEMAND

BASF SE,BERJE INCORPORATED,)BUSH BOAKE ALLEN, INC.,)CHEMTURA CORP., U/k/a CHEMTURA USA )CORP. f/k/a CROMPTON MANUFACTURING)CO., INC. (CMC1) f/k/a UNIROYAL)CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCCI),)CHEMTURA CANADA CO./C.I.E. f/ka)

CROMPTON COMPANY/C.I.E. f/k/a)

UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. LIMITED/C.I.E.)f/k/a UNIROYAL LTD.,)CHR. HANSEN, INC.,)CITRUS AND ALLIED ESSENCES LTD., )

DALIAN LUCK FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD,)

DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES USA, INC.,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES B.V.,)DUANE STREET CAPITAL, LLC,)ELAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,)FIRST ILLES INVESTMENTS, LLC,)FLEURCHEM, INC.,)FRUTAROM USA INC.)GIST-BROCADES SAVORY INGREDIENTS, INC.,)

GOLD COAST INGREDIENTS INC.,

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .AT~oRNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


INTERN~ATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC-)

ILLOVO SUGAR,MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC.,)

O'LAUGHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,

PENTA MANUFACTURING CO.,)PHOENIX AROMAS & ESSENTIAL OILS, INC., )SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC.,SIGMA-ALDRICH CO.,

SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION,)UNGERER & COMPANY, INC-USINES LAMBIOTTE SA

And

JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20,)

Plaintiff Carl Gabauer, residing at 39 Aspen Lane, Levittown, Pennsylvania, says by way

of Complaint:

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This Court has jurisdiction because each defendant placed its flavoring and/or

chemicals into the stream of commerce, sold said product for use, conducted business in New

Jersey, and/or have caused tortious injury in this State in the course of their business.

2. Venue is proper because the cause of action arose, in part out of Middlesex

County, New Jersey.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Carl Gabauer is an individual that works at a flavoring plant owned by

Firmenich Incorporated from approximately 1984-Present.

4. Defendant Aaroma Holdings, LLC, is is a Delaware limited liability company

with its principal place of business located at 200 Theodore Conrad Drive, Jersey City, New

Jersey 07305.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .AITORNEYSATLAW



5. Defendant Centrome, Inc., dlb/a Advanced Biotech, ("Centrome") is a New Jersey

Corporation whose principal place of business is 8 5ih Fith Aye, Bldg 5, Paterson, New Jersey,

07524.

6. Defendant BASF Corporation ("BASF Corp.") is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in Florham Park, New Jersey.

7. Defendant BASF SE ("BASF SE") is a foreign corporation with its principal place

of business in Ludwigshafenl, Rhineland-Palatinlate, Germany.

8. Defendant Bedie, Incorporated("Be~je") is an New York corporation with its

principal place of business is located in Bloomfield, New Jersey.

9. Defendant Bush Boake Allen, Inc. ("BBA") is a Virginia corporation which can

be

served with a Summons and Complaint at its Registered Agent: United States Corporation Co, 33

North LaSalle St., Chicago, Illinois 60602-2607.

10.. *Defendant Chemtura Corporation ("Chemrtura") is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business in Middlebury, Connecticut.

11. Defendant Chemtura Canada Co.ICi.e. ("Chemrturat Canada"') was formerly kniown

as Crompton Co./Ci.e., Uniroyal Chemical Co./Ci.e., Uniroyal Chemical Limited/Limitess,

and/or Uniroyal Ltd.Ltee. Defendant Chemitura Canada can be served at Chemtura Canada

Co.ICi.e., c/o Dimitri Makres, 25 Erb Street, Elmira, Ontario, Canada N3 B3A3.

12. Defendant CHR. Hansen, Inc. ("Hansen") is a Wisconsin corporation with its

principal place of business outside of Michigan.

13. Defendant Citrus & Allied Essence, Ltd. ('Citrus") is a New York corporation

3

LOCKS LAW FIRMI LLC AI47TRNEYSAI'Lfl

4157 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. NJ 0800)2


whose

principal place of business is 3000 Marcus Avenue, Lake Success, New York.

14. Defendant Dalian Luck Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. is, upon information and belief, a

foreign corporation with its principal place of business Dalian, Liaoning, China.

15. Defendant DSM Food Specialties USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation whose

principal place of business is 45 Waterview Blvd., Passippany, New Jersey, 07054.

16. Defendant DSM Food Specialties B.V. is a Dutch corporation whose principal

place

of business is Alexander Fleminglaafl 1, 2613 AX Dift, The Netherlands.

17. Defendant Duane Street Capital, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company

with its principal place of business located at 105 Duane Street, Suite 46H, New York, New

York, 10007.

18. Defendant Elan Chemical Company Inc. ("Elan") is a New Jersey Corporation,

whose principal place of business is 268 Doremus Avenue, Newark, New Jersey, 07105.

19. Defendant First Illes Investments, LLC ("First Illes") is General Partner of Illes

Food

Ingredients, LLC and is a Texas limited liability company. Defendant First Illes Investments,

LLC can be served with a Summons and Complaint at its Registered Agent: George M. Illes,

Jr. 2200 Luna Rd., Ste 120, Carrolton, Texas 75006.

20. Defendant Fleurchem, Inc. is a New York corporation can be served with a

Summons

and Complaint at its Registered Agent: George Gluck, 9 Jacaruso Dr., Spring Valley, New York

4

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -. 4 4TORNEYSA TLA W

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


10977.

21. Defendant Frutarom USA, Inc. ("Frutarom") is a New Jersey corporation which

can

be served with a Summons and Complaint at its Registered Agent: The Corporation Trust

Company, 820 Bear Tavern Road, West Trenton, New Jersey 08628.

22. Defendant Gist-Brocades Savory Ingredients, Inc. ("Gist Savory") is Delaware

corporation with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.

23. Defendant Gold Coast Ingredients, Inc., (Gold Coast) is a California corporation

which can be served with a Summons and Complaint to its Registered Agent: James A. Sgro,

2429 Yates Avenue, Commerce, California, 90040.

24. Defendant International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., is a New York corporation

whose principal place of business is 521 West 57h Street, New York, New York 10019.

25. Defendant Illovo Sugar Limited C'Illovo") is a South African corporation with its

principal place of business in Mount Edgecombe, KWAZULU4'IATAL,. South Africa.

Defendant Illovo can be served at Illovo Sugar Limited, I Montgomery Drive, Mount

Edgecombe, KWAZULU-NATAL, South Africa.

26. Defendant McCormick & Company, Inc., (McCormick) is a Maryland corporation

which can be served at its Registered Agent: Illinois Corporation Service C, 801 Adlai Stevenson

Drive, Springfield, Illinois, 62703.

27. Defendant O'Laughlin Industries Inc. C"O'Laugh]ifl) is a New Jersey Corporation

with offices at 150 Morris Aye, Suite 207, Springfield, New Jersey.

28. Defendant Penta Manufacturing Company is a Delaware corporation which can be

5

LOCKS LAW FIRM LIC -A7TOPJEYSATL4;V

457 Haddofld Road. Su~ite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


served with a Summons and Complaint at its Registered Agent: LTD Registered Agent, 1220 N.

Market St.. Suite 804, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

29. Defendant Phoenix Aromas & Essential Oils, LLC ("Phoenix") is a Delaware

limited

liability company, with its principal place of business in Norwood, New Jersey.

30. Defendant Sigma-Aldrich, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation whose principal place

of

business is 3050 Spruce Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63103.

31. Defendant Sigma-Aldrich Co. is an Illinois corporation whose principal place of

business is 3050 Spruce S treet, St. Louis, Missouri 63103.

132. Defendant Sigma-Aldrich Corporation is a Delaware corporation whose principal

place of business is 3050 Spruce Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63103.

33. Defendant Ungerer & Company ("Ungerer") is a Delaware corporation which

can

be served with a Summons and Complaint at its Registered Agent: CT Corporation System, 1201

Peachtree St., Atlanta, Geor gia 30361.

34. Defendant Usines Lambiotte SA, is upon information and belief, a foreign

corporation who designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, and/or marketed the chemical diacetyl

as described more fully below.

35. In this petition, Defendants Sigma-Aldrich, Inc, Sigma-Aldrich Co. and Sigma-

Aldrich Corporation are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sigma."

36. In this petition, Defendants DSM Food Specialties USA, Inc. and DSM Food

6

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - ATTORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


Specialties B.V. are hereinafter collectively referred to as "DSM".

37. Polarome International, Inc., now known as Emoral, Inc., sold the chemical

diacetyl to Firmenich.

38. Defendant Duane Street purchased all, or substantially all, of the assets of

Polarome International, Inc.

39. Defendant Duane Street sold, assigned and/or transferred all, or substantially all,

of the assets of Polarome to defendant Aaroma.

40. Defendants Duane Street and/or Aaroma are the mere continuation of the

predecessor entity Polarome International, Inc. As the continuation of the Polarome International,

Inc. entity, defendants Duane Street and/or Aaroma are liable for the acts, omissions and/or

products sold by Polarome International, Inc. under the theory of successor liability.

41. Defendants are companies that design, manufacture, sell, distribute, and market

the chemical diacetyl as described more fully below.

42. Defendants sold the chemical diacetyl to Plaintiffs employer Firmenich

I ncorporated.

43. Based upon the sales, distribution, and marketing of the chemical diacetyl and

other products, defendants, upon information and belief, conducted business in and sought the

rights and protections of, the laws of the State of New Jersey.

44. At all times pertinent, the true names and addresses of John Doe Defendant 1-20

have been and remain unknown despite Plaintiff's attempts to discover their names and

addresses. It is known that John Doe Defendants are individuals, partnerships, or corporations

who are or were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, and selling flavoring

7

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .AI7QRNlEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


chemicals to which Plaintiff was exposed.

Nature of the Case

45. Plaintiffs employer Firmenich Incorporated ("Firmeflich"') is the owner and

operator

of a flavoring plant in Plainsboro, New Jersey.

46. Plaintiff was an employee of Firmenich from2000 to Present.

w orking in vanious departments and fulfilling various job duties. Plaintiff used and was exposed

to diacetyl during this employment.

47. Plaintiff, in the course of his employment, was exposed to diacetyl manufactured,

marketed, distributed and sold by defendants, or Polarome International, Inc. to which defendat

Duane Street andor aroma are a continuation of that entity and subect to successor liability,

which caused him to suffer severe and permanent injury to his person as more fully described

below.

48. Exposure to diacetyl can cause damage to the respiratory system, bronchiectasis,

bronchiolitis obliterans, chronic bronchiolitis, chronic obstructive bronchiolitis, chronic cough,

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, fatigue, obstructive spirometry

abnormalities, severe lung impairment, *shortness of breath and other respiratory illnesses and

diseases.

49. Exposure to diacetyl can excacerbate respiratory illnesses and diseases including,

but

not limited to asthma.

50. At all time relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was unaware of the hazards of

8

LOCK(S LAW FIRM LLC .47TORN.EYS A TLA W

457 HaiddoflCd Road. Suite 5(0 Cherry Hill NJ 08i002


exposure to diacetyl and that he was being exposed to a chemical hazard which could cause him

permanent lung injury.

51. The Defendants knew or should have known of the hazardous nature of diacetyl

both

at the time of sale and when Plaintiff was exposed to such diacetyl while working at the

Firmenich facility. Notwithstand ing, the Defendants failed to warni of the defective nature of

diacetyl and failed to give instructions on safe use of diacetyl.

52. As early as 1985 defendants were, or should have been aware that diacetyl was

considered "harmful" and capable of producing systemic toxicity.

53. In 1986, Defendant Citrus was named as a defendant in Spaulding v. AAPER. et

Circuit Court of Marshall County, Indiana, Case No. CTC 86-117, filed April 15, 1986 and Kois

v. Aceto Chemca Co.. et al.. Circuit Court of Marshall County, Indiana, Case No. CTC 86-200.

The plaintiffs in both actions alleged to have suffered from lung disease from exposure to

chemicals at the International Bakers Services Plant. Among the chemicals identified in the

action as having caused or contributed to cause lung injury to plaintiffs Spaulding and Kois were

diacetyl. Citrus was represented by counsel in the lawsuits. Citrus was specifically named in

the action as having been a supplier of diacetyl to H.B. Taylor which then spray dried the diacetyl

for sale to the International Baker Services company.

54. Upon information and belief, Defendants provided material safety data sheets

with the diacetyl that they provided to the Firmenich plant. That MSDS's did not state that

exposure to diacetyl could cause severe or permanent lung injury. Defendants affixed warning

labels on the diacetyl containers which were delivered to the Firmenich plant. The labels did not

recommend any respiratory protection.

9

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATTORNEYS ArL4;V

.457 H-addonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


COUNT IStrct iablit i Tot -DesgnDefect

55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

56. Plaintiff s claim for strict liability based on defective design is being brought

pursuant to New Jersey common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. §

2A:58C-1 through 2A:58C-9.

57. The Defendants designed, manufactured and/or sold diacetyl as descnibed in this

Complaint within the ordinary course of their business.

58. When Plaintiff was exposed to the Defendants' diacetyl during the course of his

employment at Firmenich the diacetyl was used in a manner reasonably anticipated by the

Defendants.

59. At the time of the design, manufacture, processing, distribution, sale and/or use of

the Defendants' diacetyl, the diacetyl was defective as designed when put to the use anticipated

by the Defendants, as a result, among other things, of their diacetyl having the propensity to

cause bronchiolitis obliterans, as well as fatigue, shortness of breath, severe lung impairment,

lung scarring, coughing, dyspinea, focal emphysema, bronchiolitis, pulmonary fibrosis, end-stage

lung disease and other respiratory illnesses and diseases.

60. As a result of the propensity of the Defendants' diacetyl to cause respiratory

disease as described above, the Defendants' diacetyl was unreasonably dangerous and defective

when put to the use anticipated by the Defendants.

61. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' concealment, Plaintiff suffers

10

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . ATTORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 -Chenry Hill, NJ 08002


from respiratory injuries including but not limited to, severe, permanent, and progressive damage

to the lungs, severe damage to the respiratory system and/or impairment of the ability to fuinction.

Plaintiff suffers and has suffered physical pain, mental and emotional distress, and/or loss of

sleep and natural rest. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered and will suffer loss of wages and/or

earning capacity and have expended money for medical treatment, medication, medical

monitoring and/or medical devices.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants, individually, jointly,

and severally for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit,

attorneys' fees, and all such other and further relief that the Court deems just.

COUNT 11

Strict Liability in Tort - Failure to Warn


paragraphs as if fully'set forth herein.

63. Plaintiff's claim for strict liability based on failure to warn is being brought

pursuant

to New Jersey common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:59C-l

through 2A:58C-9.

64. The Defendants designed, manufactured, processed, distributed, marketed, sold

and supplied diacetyl as described in this Complaint without adequate instructions on its safe use

to reduce and/or eliminate exposure thereto, and/or without warnings that the diacetyl contained

substances that are dangerous to health and life and cause severe respiratory diseases.

65. Defendants failed to provide warnings or instructions with their diacetyl. that a

I I

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -. .fTORNEYSATL4WY



reasonably prudent person would have provided under the same or similar circumstances with

respect to the danger of diacetyl and that communicated adequate information on the dangers and

safe use of diacetyl taking into account the characteristics of and the ordinary knowledge

common to the person by whom the diacetyl was intended to be used.

66. As a result of the Defendants' failure to adequately instruct and warn of the

dangerous characteristics of diacetyl, the diacetyl was defective and unreasonably dangerous

when put to the use reasonably anticipated by the Defendants.



to the lungs, severe damage to the respiratory system and/or impairment of the ability to function.


sleep and natural rest. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered and-will suffer loss of wages and/or






COUNT I

Negligence



69. Plaintiff s claim for negligent design and negligent failure to warn. and instruct is

12

LOCKS LAW F~IRM LLC -.A1TORNEYSATLIW

457 H-addonfield Roaid. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


being brought pursuant to New Jersey common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat.

Ann. § 2A: 58C-lI through 2A: 58C-9.

70. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold diacetyl,

including but not limited to those chemicals described in this Complaint.

71. The Defendants' diacetyl when used as intended was highly likely to be a

substantial contributing factor in causing the following human illnesses, injuries and conditions:

a. bronchiolitis obliterans;

b. respiratory disease;

C. severe impairment of lung function; and

d. other types of diseases and injuries associated with flavoring chemicals

and their constituents.

72. At all times material, the ordinary user, including the Plaintiff, did not know of

the likelihood of, the severity of, or the extent of the risks from the Defendants' diacetyl.

73. The Defendants at all times material had and breached the following legal duties

to the Plaintiff:

a. the duty to warn all foreseeable users of the Defendants' diacetyl of the

likelihood, probability and/or foreseeability that the harms listed herein

would or might occur if the products were used as intended;

b. the duty to acquire, maintain and apply the best scientific knowledge

available in the field of flavoring chemical design, manufacture,

marketing, distribution and sale;

c. the duty to test, design, manufacture and sell flavoring chemicals that

13

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -.4rOR1EYSATUW~

457 Haiddonficid Road, Suite 500 - Chemri Hill, NJ 08002


when used as intended are reasonably safe for all foreseeable users;

d. the duty to make feasible improvements in design, composition, or

manufacture of flavoring chemicals that would decrease the foreseeable

risk to users;

e. the duty to disclose to all foreseeable users the results of their own

scientific research and other scientific research known to them indicating

that the use of flavoring chemicals and/or their constituents cause serious

risks of harm;

f. the duty to warn all foreseeable users of the known dangers of flavoring

chemicals and/or their constituents; and

g. the continuing duty to warn all foreseeable users of their flavoring

chemicals concerning defects of which the Defendants acquired

knowledge after the product was manufactured or sold.

74. The Defendants failed to use due care under the circumstances and were thereby

negligent in the performance of their duties to Plaintiff. Each of the Defendants' failure of due

care included, but was not limited to, the following:

a. The Defendants, despite their expert knowledge of the hazards of diacetyl,

failed to make any attempt to discover ways to either identify or eliminate

unsafe chemicals or constituents;

b. The Defendants failed to craft warnings that would be understood by

Plaintiff and his co-workers; and

c. The Defendants had access to knowledge regarding ways to use their

14

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -A7TORNEYSATLAW



flavoring and flavoring chemicals in manufacturing to prevent injury,

including but not limited to the following practices and procedures:

1) not heating flavors above certain temperature;

2) not mixing flavors in open systems;

3) directing all personnel to wear full-face air supplied

respirators/personal protective equipment when working

around their flavors and flavoring chemicals;

4) directing air sampling to assure integrity of the system; and

5) directing use of general and local exhaust at all times when

ma nufacturing.




Plaintiff suffers and has suffered physical pain,, mental and emotional distress, and/or loss of







COUNT IV

Fraudulent Concealment of Defendants

15

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -. 41TORNEYSATLIlW

457 HaIddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cheny Hill, NJ 08002




77. Plaintiffs claim for fraudulent concealment is being brought pursuant to New

Jersey

common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-1 through 2A:58C-9.

78. By at least 1991, Defendants knew that diacetyl causes adverse health effects to

humans including severe respiratory disease.

79. Despite such knowledge, Defendants intentionally and maliciously chose to

conceal these facts from the scientific and medical communities, the government and the public,

including Plaintiff.

80. The information concealed by the Defendants regarding the serious health risks of

using their diacetyl was material.

81. Defendants had a duty to disclose such information to Plaintiff

because, among other things:

a. Defendants possessed knowledge regarding the health effects of diacetyl

that was superior to Plaintiff s knowledge;

b. Defendants had a relationship of trust and/or confidence with Plaintiff; and

C. other attendant circumstances.

Mn82. Defendants intended to mislead individuals, including the Plaintiff, by concealing

the true facts concerning the hazards of exposure to diacetyl and profited from their fraud by

continuing and increasing the sale or use of diacetyl which they knew was hazardous to persons

deliberately kept ignorant of material facts concerning the true hazards of diacetyl.

16

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -.ArrORNEYSATILAW

457 Haiddonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


83. Plaintiff reasonably and detrimentally relied on Defendants' fraudulent

concealment by not acting to protect himself from the dangers associated with the Defendants'

diacety I products and were reasonably justified in not acting.











COUNT VPunitive Damages



86. The Defendants' acts or failures to act demonstrated malice, aggravated or

egregious fraud, oppression or insult, as well as a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of

other persons that has a great probability of causing substantial harm. The award for this count

17

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . AJTORNE'S A TL-1IW

457 Haddonfield Road. Site 500 -Cherr Hill. NJ 08002


should be in an amount sufficient to deter defendants and others from the future commission of

like offenses and wrongs.




JTury Demand

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

Desizination of Tirial Counsel

Pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, it shall be Karl Friedrichs, Esquire.

Certification of Counsel

1, Karl Friedrichs, Esquire, hereby certify that the following statements made by me are

true to the best of my knowledge:

a. This action as pled is not presently subject to any other action or arbitration

proceeding.

b. No other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated at this time by counsel.

c. I am unaware of any other parties who should be joint in this action.

I hereby certify that the foregoing statement made by me are true, I am aware that if any

of the forgoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

18

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -.47TORNEYS AT~LA P



Dated: By: MLC

Karl FriedrichsAttorney for Plaintiff

19

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .ATTORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 -Chenry Hill. NJ 08002


Exhibit B-2

Hummell Complaint


MIDDLESEX VICINAGE CIVIL DIVISIONPOBOX 263356 PATERSON STREETNEW BRUNSWICK NJ 08903-2633

TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICECOURT TELEPHONE NO. (732) 519-3728COURT HOURS

DATE,RE:DOCKET,

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011HUMMELL LEROY VS AAROMA HOLDINGS LLCMID L -006523 11

THE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO, TRACK 3.

DISCOVERY IS 450 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYSFROM SERVICE ON THE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS, HON MARTIN KRAVARIK

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT TEAM 001AT, (732) 519-3728 EXT 3728.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK IS INAPPROPRIATE YOU MUST FILE ACERTIFICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FILING OF YOUR PLEADING.

PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCEWITH R.4, 5A-2.

ATTENTION,

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC457 HADDONFIELD ROADSUITE 500CHERRY HILL NJ 08002

JUMBURO


Appendix XII-BI

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT(CIS)

Use for initial Law DivisionCivil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1

Pleading will be rejected fo r filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c),if information above the black bar is not completed or

if attorney's signature is not affixed.

FOR USE BY ClERK S OFFICE ONL Y,PAYMENT TYPE: DCK DCG DCA

CHG/CK NO.

AMOUNT:

OVERPAYMENT:

BATCH NUMBER:

ATTORNEY/PRO SE NAME

Karl Friedrichs, Esquire

TELEPHONE NUMBER

(856) 663-8200

COUNTY OF VENUE

MiddlesexDOCKET NUMBER (lNhen available)FIRM NAME (If applicable)

Locks Law Firm, LLCOFFICE ADDRESS

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

~YES DNO

NAME OF PARTY (e.g., John Doe, Plainllff)

Leroy Hummell

CAPTION

Leroy Hummell v. Aaroma Holdings, LLC, et al.

IF YOU HAVE CHECKED ·YES,· seE N.J.S.A. 2A:53A·27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDINGYOUR OBLIGATION TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.

CASE TYPE NUMBER(See reverse side for listing)

606

IS THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE? YES NO


DYES 181 NO

NAME OF DEFENDANT'S PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY, IF KNOWN

o NONE~ UNKNOWN

DO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDINGANY PARTIES (arising out of same DYES ~ NOtransaction or occurrence)?

, THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE.


DO PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT, IF YES, IS THAT

PAST OR RECURRENT RELATIONSHIP t8J EMPLOYER·EMPLOYEE o FRIEND/NEIGHBOR o OTHER (explain)

RELATIONSHIP? DYES ~NO o FAMILIAL D BUSINESS

DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THISCASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES DYES 181 NOBY THE LOSING PARTY?

USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATEDDISPOS 1Tl0N:

, --" , <~ ,.. -,,-. :::::J(_n

1 ;:-~ ~J~ :::J < : ·',1'-

.~--

)'~ ~~f;;"-,,,~: C;:) (.)

r -- ::.a (..:J

1~ll DO YOU OR YOUR CLIENT NEED ANY IF YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE -:()oDISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS? DYES 181 NO REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION: .: .. ::~: ~(f)

WILL AN INTERPRETER BE NEEDED?

e:tz~s' . .! ;-'.-} ::.:i181 NO IF YES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE: -

I certify that confidential persol~entifierSe~een redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will beredacled rrom all dQcuments subm ted in the fu in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b).

AnORNEYSIGNATURE:~~'"N~'0\ "'-Revised Effective 912009, eN 10517





Track 1-150 days' discovery151 NAME CHANGE175 FORFEITURE302 TENANCY399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract. Condemnation, Complex Commerclal or Construction)502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only)505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (INCLUDiNG DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS)506 PIP COVERAGE510 UM or UIM CLAIM511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT512 LEMON LAW601 SUMMARY ACTiON602 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION)999 OTHER (Briefly describe nature of action)

Track 11- 300 days' discovery305 CONSTRUCTION509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD)599 CONTRACT/COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION603 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY605 PERSONAL INJURY610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PROPERTY DAMAGE699 TORT - OTHER

Track III - 450 days' discovery005 CIVIL RIGHTS301 CONDEMNATION602 ASSAULT AND BAnERY604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE606 PRODUCT LIABILITY607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE606 TOXIC TORT609 DEFAMATION616 WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION616 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Track IV - Active Case Management by Individual Judge 1450 days' discovery156 ENVIRONMENTAUENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION303 MT. LAUREL506 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION514 INSURANCE FRAUD701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

Centrally Managed litigation (Track IV)280 Zelnorm285 Stryker Trident Hip Implants

Mass Tori (Track IV)246 CIBA GEIGY266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT)271 ACCUTANE272 BEXTRNCELEBREX274 RISPERDAUSEROQUEUZYPREXA275 ORTHO EVRA277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE278 ZOMETNAREDIA

279 GADOLINIUM281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL262 FOSAMAX283 DIGITEK284 NUVARING266 LEVAQUIN601 ASBESTOS619 VIOXX

If you believe this case requires a track other than that provided above, please indicate the reason on Side 1,in the space under "Case Characteristics."Please check off each applicable category:o Verbal Threshold 0 Putative Class Action DTitle 59

Revised Effective 912009. eN 10517


Karl Friedrichs, Esquire

LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002(856) 6663-8200Attorneys for PlaintiffBy:

,'1 '-j 1;. C. IL L_ •

LEROY HUMMELL

Plaintiff,

v.

)))))))))

SUPERIOR COURT OFNEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION:MIDDLESEX COUNTY

DOCKET NO: L- (0 S-2..0 1/

CIVIL ACTION

)AAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC., )CENTROME, INC., d/b/a ADVANCED BIOTECH, )BASF CORPORATION, )BASFSE, )BERJE INCORPORATED, )BUSH HOAKE ALLEN, INC., )CHEMTURA CORP., f/k/a CHEMTURA USA )CORP. f/k/a CROMPTON MANUFACTURING )CO., INC. (CMCI) f/k/a UNIROYAL )CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCCI), )CHEMTURA CANADA CO.lC.I.E. f/k/a )CROMPTON COMPANY/C.I.E. f/k/a )UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. LIMITED/C.I.E. )f/k/a UNIROYAL LTD., )CHR. HANSEN, INC., )CITRUS AND ALLIED ESSENCES LTD., )DALIAN LUCK FINE CHEMICAL CO" LTD, )DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES USA, INC., )DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES B,V" )DUANE STREET CAPITAL, LLC, )ELAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, )FIRST ILLES INVESTMENTS, LLC, )FLEURCHEM, INC., )FRUTAROM USA INC. )GIST-BROCADES SAVORY INGREDIENTS, INC" )GOLD COAST INGREDIENTS INC" )

COMPLAINT AND JURYDEMAND

LO<;KS LAW FIRM LLC ·,41TORN£YS,4T LIW

457 Haddontidd Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


.'

INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.)ILLOVO SUGAR, )McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., )O'LAUGHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC., )PENTA MANUFACTURING CO., )PHOENIX AROMAS & ESSENTIAL OILS, INC., )SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC., )SIGMA-ALDRICH CO., )SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION, )UNGERER & COMPANY, INC. )USINES LAMBlOTTE SA )

)And )

)JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, )

Plaintiff Leroy Hummell, residing at 38 Sandal Lane, Willingboro, New Jersey, says by

way of Complaint:


I. This Court has jurisdiction because each defendant placed its flavoring and/or




County, New Jersey.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Leroy Hummell is an individual that works at a flavoring plant owned by

Firmenich Incorporated from approximately 1983 - Present.


with its principal place of business located at 200 Theodore Comad Drive, Jersey City, New

Jersey 07305.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC • A7TORNEYS ATLAW

-l57 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 • Cheny Hill. NJ 08002


"

5. Defendant Centrome, Inc" d/b/a Advanced Biotech, ("Centrome") is a New Jersey

Corporation whose principal place of business is 85 th Fith Ave, Bldg 5, Paterson, New Jersey,

07524.




of business in Ludwigshafen, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany,

8. Defendant Berje, Incorporated("Berje") is an New York corporation with its



be



10.. Defendant Chemtura Corporation ("Chemtura") is a Delaware corporation with its


II. Defendant Chemtura Canada Co.lCi.e. ("Chemtura Canada") was formerly known

as Crompton Co.lCLe., Uniroyal Chemical Co.lCi.e., Uniroyal Chemical LimitedlLimitess,

and/or Uniroyal Ltd.Ltee. Defendant Chemtura Canada can be served at Chemtura Canada'

Co.lCi.e., c/o Dimitri Makres, 25 Erb Street, Elmira, Ontario, Canada N3B3A3.



13. Defendant Citrus & Allied Essence, Ltd. ("Citrus") is a New York corporation

3

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC 'AITORNEYSATLAW

-l57 Haddontield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


whose







place

of business is Alexander Fleminglaan I, 2613 AX Dlft, The Netherlands.



York,10007.




Food





Summons


4

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC ·.-lITORN£YSATL/W

-l57 Huddontield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


10977.


can



22. Detendant Gist-Brocades Savory Ingredients, Inc. ("Gist Savory") is Delaware


23. Defendant Gold Coast Ingredients, Inc., (Gold Coast) is a Ca[ifomia corporation



24. Defendant Internationa[ Flavors & Fragrances, [nc., is a New York corporation

whose principal place of business is 521 West 57th Street, New York, New York [0019.

25. Defendant Illovo Sugar Limited ("llIovo") is a South African corporation with its

principal place of business in Mount Edgecombe, KWAZULU-NATAL, South Africa.

Defendant 1lI0vo can be served at 1lI0vo Sugar Limited, I Montgomery Drive, Mount



which can be served at its Registered Agent: Illinois Corporation Service C, 80[ Adlai Stevenson

Drive, Springfield, llIinois, 62703.

27. Defendant O'Laughlin Industries Inc. ~'O'LaughIin") is a New Jersey Corporation

with offices at ISO Morris Ave, Suite 207, Springfield, New Jersey.


5

LOCKSLAWFIRMLLC 'ATTORNEYSATLIW

.+57 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002



Market St., Suite 804, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.


limited


30. Defendant Sigma-Aldrich, Ine. is a Wisconsin corporation whose principal place

of







can


Peachtree St., Atlanta, Georgia 30361.

34. Defendant Usines Lambiotte SA, is upon infonnation and belief, a foreign






6

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATTORNEYS ATLlW

-1.57 Haddontield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


Specialties B. V. are hereinafter collectively referred to as "DSM".

37. Polarome International, Inc., now known as Emoral, [nc., sold the chemical




39. Delendant Duane Street sold, assigned and/or translerred all, or substantially all,






41. Delendants are companies that design, manufacture, sell, distribute, and market



Incorporated.


other products, delendants, upon information and belief, conducted business in and sought the



have been and remain unknown despite Plaintiffs attempts to discover their names and


who are or were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, and selling l1avoring

7


457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002



Nature of the Case

45. Plaintifrs employer Firmenich Incorporated ("Firmenich") IS the owner and

operator


46. Plaintiff was an employee of Firmenich fromI983 to Present.

working in various departments and fulfilling various job duties. Plaintiff used and was exposed

to diacetyI during this employment.


marketed, distributed and sold by defendants, or Polarome International, Inc. to which defendants

Duane Street and/or Aaroma are a continuation of that entity and subject to successor liability,


below.




abnormalities, severe lung impairment, shortness of breath and other respiratory illnesses and

diseases.


but


50. At all time relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was unaware ofthe hazards of

8

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC 'A1TORNEYSATLAW

-1-57 Haddonfield Road Suite 500 • Ch~ny Hill. NJ 08002





both


Firmenich facility. Notwithstanding, the Defendants failed to warn of the defective nature of




53. In 1986, Defendant Citrus was named as a defendant in Spaulding v. AAPER, et

Circuit Court of Marshall County, Indiana, Case No. CTC 86-117, tiled April 15, 1986 and Kois

v. Aceto Chemical Co., et aI., Circuit Court of Marshall County, Indiana, Case No. CTC 86-200.

The plaintiffs in both actions alleged to have sutTered from lung disease from exposure to






54. Upon information and belief, Defendants provided material safety data sheetswith the diacetyl that they provided to the Firmenich plant. That MSDS's did not state thatexposure to diacetyl could cause severe or permanent lung injury. Defendants affixed warninglabels on the diacetyl containers which were delivered to the Firmenich plant. The labels did notrecommend any respiratory protection.

9

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC 'ATTORNEYSATLlW

457 Haddontield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


COUNT IStrict Liability in Tort -- Design Defect

55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth In all preceding


56. Plaintiffs claim tor strict liability based on detective design is being brought


2A:58C-l through 2A:58C-9.

57. The Detendants designed, manufactured and/or sold diacetyl as described in this




Defendants.





lung scarring, coughing, dyspnea, focal emphysema, bronchiolitis, pulmonary fibrosis, end-stage





61. As a direct and proximate result of Detendants' concealment, Plaintiff suffers

10

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC ".·I7TORNEYS ATLAW

-1-57 Haddontield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002




Plaintiff sutfers and has suffered physical pain, mental and emotional distress, and/or loss of

sleep and natural rest. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered and wiIl sutTer loss of wages and/or



WHEREFORE, PlaintifT demands judgment against defendants, individually, jointly,

and severaIly for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit,


COUNT IIStrict Liability in Tort -- Failure to Warn

62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the aIlegations set forth in all preceding

paragraphs as if fuIly set forth herein.

63. Plaintiffs claim for strict liability based on failure to warn is being brought

pursuant

to New Jersey common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-I

through 2A:58C-9.





65. Defendants failed to provide warnings or instructions with their diacetyl that a

11


.l57 Haddonticld Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002




sate use of diacetyltaking into account the characteristics of and the ordinary knowledge



dangerous characteristics of diacetyl, the diacetyl was detective and unreasonably dangerous





Plaintiff suffers and has sutfered physical pain, mental and emotional distress, and/or loss of

sleep and natural rest. In addition, Plaintitf has sutfered and will sutTer loss of wages and/or






COUNT IIINegligence

68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth In all preceding


69. Plaintiff s claim tor negligent design and negligent failure to warn and instruct is

12

LOCKS LAW fIRM LLC ·.-I7TORNEYSATLAW

-1-57 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002



Ann. § 2A:58C-l through 2A:58C-9.







c. severe impairment of lung function; and

d. other types of diseases and injuries associated with t1avoring chemicals





to the Plaintiff:





available in the field of t1avoring chemical design, manufacture,


c. the duty to test, design, manufacture and sell t1avoring chemicals that

13

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC ".nTORNEYSATUW

-1-51 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 • Cheny Hill. NJ 08002




manufacture of tlavoring chemicals that would decrease the foreseeable

risk to users;



that the use of tlavoring chemicals and/or their constituents cause serious

risks of harm;












___b. The Defendants failed to craft warnings that would be understood by



14

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC 'A1TORNEYS ATLAW

.+57 Haddontield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ OM002


tlavoring and tlavoring chemicals in manufacturing to prevent injury,


I) not heating tlavors above certain temperature;

2) not mixing l1avors in open systems;

3) directing all personnel to wear full-face aIr supplied


around their l1avors and tlavoring chemicals;



manufacturing.






eaming capacity and have expended money for medical treatment, medication, medical





COUNT IVFraudulent Concealment of Defendants

15

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC '.HTORN£YSATLAW

-1.57 Haddontield Road., Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002




77. Plaintiffs claim lor fraudulent concealment is being brought pursuant to New

Jersey

common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-I through 2A:58C-9.

78. By at least 1991, Defendants knew that diacetyI causes adverse health effects to




including Plaintifl:

80. The inlormation concealed by the Delendants regarding the serious health risks of

using their diacety I was material.




that was superior to Plaintiffs knowledge;


c. other attendant circumstances.

Defendants intended to mislead individuals, including the Plaintiff, by concealing

the true facts concerning the hazards of exposure to diacetyl and profited Irom their fraud by



16

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATJORNEYSATLAW

..j.57 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


83. Plaintiff reasonably and detrimentally relied on Detendants' fraudulent


diacetyl products and were reasonably justitied in not acting.

84. As a direct and proximate result of Detendants' concealment, Plaintiff suffers




sleep and natural rest. In addition, PlaintitT has suffered and will suffer loss of wages and/or



WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against detendants, individually, jointly,


attorneys' tees, and all such other and further relief that the Court deems just.


85. Plaintiff incorporates by reterence the allegations set forth In all preceding





17

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATTORN£YSATL.nY

457 Haddonlield Road, Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


should be in an amount sufticient to deter defendants and others Irom the future commission of





Jury Demand


Designation of Trial Counsel



I, Karl Friedrichs, Esquire, hereby certifY that the following statements made by me are



proceeding.



I hereby certifY that the foregoing statement made by me are true, I am aware that if any


LOCKS LAW-FIRM.'.

BY :_+:-'-c:-....:....:::.....::::.....:.,-----.:~~-_Karl riedrichs, EsquireAttorney for Plaintiff.

18

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC ".HTORNEYSATLlW

-1.57 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 • Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


Exhibit B-3

McCurdy Complaint



JAMES MCCURDY ISUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY!LAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Plaintiff(s)Docket No.: MID-L-6552-l I

V.

CIVIL ACTIONAAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,CERTROME, INC., dlb/a ADVANCED SUMMONSBIOTECH, et a].

Defendant(s)

From The State of New Jersey, To the Defendant(s) Named'Above:

CHEMTURA CORP. f/k/a CHEMTURA USA CORP.F/K/A CROMPTON MANUFACTURING CO., INC. (CMCI)

F/K/A UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCCI)

The plaintiff, named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of NewJersey. The Complaint attached to this summons states the basis for this lawsuit. If you disputethis complaint, you or your attorney must file a written answer or motion and proof of servicewith the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above within thirty-five (35)days from the date you received this summons, not counting the date you received it. (Theaddress of each Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court is provided.) If the complaint is one inforeclosure, then you must file your written answer or motion and proof of service with the Clerkof the Superior Court, Hughes Justice Complex, CN-971, Trenton, NJ 08625. A filing feepayable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey and a completed Case Information Statement(available from the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court) must accompany your answer-or motionwhen it is filed. You must also send a copy of your answer or motion to plaintiffs attorneywhose name and address appear above, or to plaintiff, if no attorney is named above. Atelephone call will not protect your rights; you must file and serve a written answer or motion(with fee of $135.00 and completed Case Information Statement) if you want the Court to hearyour defense.

If you do not file and serve a written answer or motion within thirty-five (35) days, thecourt may enter a judgment against you for the relief plaintiff demands, plus interest and costs ofsuit. If judgment is entered against you, the Sheriff may seize your money, wages or property topay all or part of the judgment.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC ATORNEYSATL4W457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


If you cannot afford an attorney, you may call the Legal Service office in the countywhere you live. A list of these offices is provided. If you do not have an attorney and are noteligible for free legal assistance, you may obtain a referral to an attorney by calling one of theLawyer Referral Services. A list of these numbers is also provided.

Dated: July 7, 2012ll eneAL9eeJENNIFER M. PEREZ, Acting ClerkSuperior Court of New Jersey

Name of Defendant to be Served: CHEMTURA CORP. f/k/a CHEMTURA USA CORP.F/K/A CROMPTON MANUFACTURING CO., INC.(CMCI) F/K/A UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CORP., INC.(UCCI)

Address of Defendant to be Served: ILLINOIS CORPORATION SERVICE801 ADLAI STEPHENSON DRIVESPRINGFIELD, IL 62703

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonifield Road, Suite 500 e Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



P 0 BOX 2613

56 PATERSON STREET

NEW BRUNSWICK NJ 08903-2633

TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICECOURT TELEPHONE NO. (732) 519-3728

COURT HOURS

DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2011.RE: MCCURDY JAMES VS AAROMA HOLDINGS LECDOCKET: MID L -006552 11

TEE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: TRACK 3.

DISCOVERY IS 450 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYSFROM SERVICE ON THE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS: HON HEIDI W.* CURRIER


AT: (732) 519-3737 EXT 3737.



PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM. ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCEWITH R.4:5A-2.

ATTENTION:

ATT: KARL FRIEDRICHS

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC


SUITE 500CHERRY HILL NJ 08002

JUTDI


Appendix XII-BI

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT * *

(CIS) PAYMENTYPE: O CKOOIG OCA

Use for initial Law Division CHG/CK No.

Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 AMOUNT:

(6 0M Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c),if information above the black bar is not completed or O0VERPAYMENT,

if attorney's signature is not affixed. BATCH NUMBER:

ATTONEYPROSE AMETELEPHONE NUMBER COUNTY OF VENUE

Karl Friedrichs, Esquire (656) 663-8200 MiddlesexFIRM NAME (If applicable) DOCKET NUMBER (When available)

Locks Law Firm, LLCOFFICE ADDRESS DOCUMENT TYPE

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 Complaint ('j~ yCherry Hill, NJ 08002 JURY DEMAND

R YES [3NO

NAME OF PARTY (e.g., John Doe, Plaintift CAPTION

James McCurdy James McCurdy v. Aaroma Holdings, LLC, et al.



DJYES P9NODO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING NAME OF DEFENDANT'S PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY, IF KNOWNANY PARTIES (arising out of same []YES 2 NOtransaction or occurrence)? E5 NONE

I~ UNKNOWN

TH INOMTO RVDO HS FOR CANO BE INRDUE INT EVIDNE

CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRI[ATE FOR MEDIATION

DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THISCASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES El YES 9 NO iLBY THE LOSING PARTY? r-

USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACGf-LERAT6D- .

DISPOSITION: i-'t f1c-

-C >

rr.,

AT]ORNE SINTUE NO I YSFRWATLNGAE

Revised Effective 9/2009, CN 105 17





Track I -150 days' discovery151 NAME CH-ANGE175 FORFEITURE302 TENANCY399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Complex Commercial or Construction)502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only)505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (INCLUDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS)506 PIP COVERAGE510 LIMorULIM CLAIM511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT512 LEMON LAW801 SUMMARY ACTION802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION)999 OTHER (Briefly describe nature of action)

Track 11 - 300 days' discovery305 CONSTRUCTION509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD)599 CONTRACTICOMMERCIAL TRANSACTION603 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY605 PERSONAL INJURY610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PROPERTY DAMAGE699 TORT -OTHER

Track III- 40 days' discovery005 CIVIL RIGHTS301 CONDEMNATION602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE606 PRODUCT LIABILITY607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE608 TOXIC TORT609 DEFAMATION616 WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES620 FALSE CLAIMS ACTw

Track IV - Active Case Management by Indivdual Judge 1460 days' discovery156 ENVIRONMENTAIJENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION303 MT. LAUREL508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION514 INSURANCE FRAUD701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

Centrally Managed Litigation (Track IV)280 Zelnorm285 Stryker Trident Hip Implants

Mass Tort (Track IV)248 CIBA GEIGY 279 GADOLINIUM266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT) 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL271 ACCUTANE 282 FOSAMAX272 BEXTRA/CELEBREX 263 DIGITEK274 RISPERDALJSEROOUEIJZYPREXA 284 NUVARING275 ORTHO EVRA 286 LEVAQUIN277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE 601 ASBESTOS278 ZOMETAIAREDIA 619 VIOXX

If you believe this case requires a track other than that provided above, please Indicate the reason on Side 1,in the space under "Case Characteristics."Please check off each applicable category:

LIVerbal Threshold F-1 Putative Class Action [-]Title 59

Revised Effective 9/2009. CN 10517


CIVILj RECi3ROSLOCKSLAW IRMLLC4.J. 'SUPERIOR COURTLOCKS LAW FIM, LLC t1!OL-LSEX NvljiiiiGE.

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 p,~ 14 UCherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 U(856) 6663-8200Attorneys for PlaintiffBy: Karl Friedrichs, Esquire

JAMES MCCURDY ) SUPERIOR COURT OF) NEW JERSEY) LAW DIVISION:


DOCIKET NO:V. Z) 635; A

) CIVIL ACTION

AAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,)CENTROME, INC., dlbfa ADVANCED BIOTECH, ) COMPLAINT AND JURYBASF CORPORATION, ) DEMANDBASF SE,)BERME INCORPORATED,)BUSH BOAKE ALLEN, INC.,)CHEMTURA CORP., 17k/a CHEMTURA USA )CORP. f/k/a CROMPTON MANUFACTURING)CO., INC. (CMCI) f/k/a UNIROYAL)CHEMICAL CORP., INC. ([lCd),CHEMTURA CANADA CO./C.I.E. Uk/a)CROMPTON COMPANYIC.I.E. f/ka)UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. LIMITED/C.I.E.)f/k/a UNIROYAL LTD.,)CHR. HANSEN, INC.,)CITRUS AND ALLIED ESSENCES LTD., )DALIAN LUCK FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES USA, INC.,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES B.V.,DUANE STREET CAPITAL, LLC,)ELAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,)FIRST ILLES INVESTMENTS, LLC,)FLEURCHEM, INC.,)FRUTAROM USA INC.)GIST-BROCADES SAVORY INGREDIENTS, INC.,)GOLD COAST INGREDIENTS INC.,)

LOCKS LAW FIRM'. LLC *ATTORNEYSATLAW



INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.)

ILLOVO SUGAR,)McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC.,)O'LAUGHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,)PENTA MANUFACTURING CO.,)PHOENIX AROMAS & ESSENTIAL OILS, INC., )SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC.,SIGMA-ALDRICH CO.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION,)UNGERER & COMPANY, INC.)USINES LAMBIOTTE SA)

And)


Plaintiff James McCurdy, residing at 8 Portsmouth Road, Mananalapan, New Jersey,

says by way of Complaint:


1 . This Court has jurisdiction because each defendant placed its flavoring and/or




County, New Jersey.

Parties

3. Plaintiff James McCurdy is an individual that works at a flavoring plant owned by

Firmeich Incorporated from approximately 1991- Present.



Jersey 07305.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .AITORNEYSATL11W

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Chery Hill, NJ 08002



Corporation whose principal place of business is 85ih Fith Ave, Bldg 5, Paterson, New Jersey,

07524.




of business in Ludwigshafen, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany.


principal place of business is l ocated in Bloomfield, New Jersey.


be



10.. Defendant Chemntura Corporation ("Chemrtura") is a Delaware corporation with its


11. Defendant Chemtura Canada Co./Ci.e. ("Chemrtura Canada") was formerly known

as Crompton Co./Ci.e., Uniroyal Chemical Co.ICi.e., Uniroyal Chemical Limited/Limitess,

and/or Uniroyal Ltd.Ltee. Defendant Chemntura Canada can be served at Chemrtura, Canada

Co./Ci.e., c/o Dimitri Makres, 25 Erb Street, Elmira, Ontario, Canada N3B33A3.




3

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -A77'ORNEYSATLAW

457 H-addontield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


whose







place

of business is Alexander Fleminglaan 1, 2613 AX Difi, The Netherlands.



York, 10007.

18. Defendant Elan Chemical Company Inc. ("Elan" ) is a New Jersey Corporation,



Food





Summons


4

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYS ATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherrv Hill. Nj 08002


10977.


can



22. Defendant Gist-Brocades Savory Ingredients, Inc. C'Gist Savory") is Delaware






whose principal place of business is 521 West 57d' Street, New York, New York 10019.

25. Defendant Illovo Sugar Limited ("Illovo") is a South African corporation with its


Defendant Illovo can be served at Illovo Sugar Limited, 1 Montgomery Drive, Mount





*27. Defendant O'Laughlin Industries Inc. C'O'Laughlin") is a New Jersey Corporation



5

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATTORNEYSArLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Chariy Hill. NJ 08002


served with, a Summons and Complaint at its Registered Agent: LTD Registered Agent, 1220 N.



limited



of







can








36. In this petition, Defendants DSM F ood Specialties USA, Inc. and DSM Food

6

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYSATLAW

457 H-addonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


Specialties B.V. are hereinafter collectively referred to as' "DSM".














Incorporated.








7

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ITTORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road., Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



Nature of the Case

45. Plaintiffs employer Firmenich Incorporated ("Firmenich") is the owner and

operator






marketed, distributed and sold by defendants, or Polarome International. Inc. to which defendants

Duane Street andor Aaromna are a continuation of that entity and subject to successor liability,


below.





diseases.


but



8

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .A7ORJEYSATLflV

457 H-addonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002




51. The Defendants knew or should have known of the hazar dous nature of diacetyl

both


Firmenich facility, Notwithstanding, the Defendants failed to warn of the defective nature of



considered "harmfuil" and capable of producing systemic toxicity.


al.


v. Aceto Chemical Co.. et al., Circuit Court of Marshall County, Indiana, Case No. CTC 86-200.












9

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC ArrOTRNEYSATL4W

457 Haddonfield Roaid. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


COUNT I

Strict Liability in Tort - Design Defect



56. Plaintiffs claim for strict liability based on defective design is being brought



57. The Defendants designed, manufactured and/or sold diacetyl as described in this




Defendants.











10


4157 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500.- Cherry Hill, NJ 08002











COUNT 11

Strict Liability in Tort -- Failure to Warn


paragraphs as if fuly set forth herein.

63. Plaintiff s claim for strict liability based on failure to warn is being brought

pursuant

to New Jersey common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-l

through 2A:58C-9.






I I

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .AITQRNEYSATDIW

4157 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cheny Hill, NJ 08002



















COUNT IIINegligence



69. Plaintiff's claim for negligent design and negligent failure to warn and instruct is

12

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATTORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill. N~J 08002



Ann. § 2A:58C-l through 2A:58C-9.













to the Plaintiff:







C. the duty to test, design, manufactu re and sell flavoring chemicals that

13

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -.A71ORNEYSATLAW

457 H-addonfield Road. suite 500 Chemr Hill. NJ 08002





risk to users;




risks of harm;







negli gent in the performance of their duties to Plaintiff. Each of the Defendants' failure of due







C. The Defendants had access to knowledge regarding ways to use their

14

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATTORNEYS ATLAW












manufacturing.












15

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYSATLIW

457 Haddonfild Road, Suite 500 -Cherry H-ill, NJ 08002





Jersey

common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-l through 2A:58C-9.











t hat was superior to Plaintiff's knowledge;

b. Defendants had a relationship of trust and/or confidence with Plaintiff;, and

c. other attendant circumstances.

M 82. Defendants intended to mislead individuals, including the Plaintiff, by concealing




16

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .AIT0R1%EYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. NJ 08002




diacetyl products and were reasonably justified in not acting.
















other persons that has a- great probability of causing substantial harm. The award for this count

17

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC *AITORNEYSATLAW








Jury Demand





1, Karl Friedrichs, Esquire, hereby certify~that the following statements made by me are



proceeding.


C. I am unaware of any other parties who should be joint in this action.



18

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC A,7TORNEYSATLAW

457 Haiddonfield Road, Su~ite 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


Dated: By:L 07KS LAW FIRM LLCKarl FriedrichsAttorney for Plaintiff

19




Exhibit B-4

Peagler Complaint



ISAIAH PEAGLER, ISUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Plaintiff(s)i Docket No.: MID-L-6527-l11

V.

CIVIL ACTIONAAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,CERTROME, INC., cl/b/a ADVANCED ISUMMONSBIOTECH, et al.

Defendant(s)


CHEMITURA CORP., f/k/a CHEMITURA USA CORP. f/IdaCROMPTON MANUFACTURING CO., INC. (CMCI) f/k/a UNIROYAL

CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCCI)

The plaintiff, named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of NewJersey. The Complaint attached to this summons states the basis for this lawsuit. If you disputethis complaint, you or your attorney must file a written answer or motion and proof of servicewith the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above within thirty-five (35)days from the date you received this summons, not counting the date you received it. (Theaddress of each Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court is provided.) If the complaint is one inforeclosure, then you must file your written answer or motion and proof of service with the Clerkof the Superior Court, Hughes Justice Complex, CN-971, Trenton, NJ 08625. A filing feepayable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey and a completed Case Information Statement(available from the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court) must accompany your answer or motionwhen it is filed. You must also send a copy of your answer or motion to plaintiffs attorneywhose name and address appear above, or to plaintiff, if no attorney is named above. Atelephone call will not protect your rights; you must file and serve a written answer or motion(with fee of $135.00 and completed Case Information Statement) if you want the Court to hearyour defense.

If you do not file and serve a written answer or motion within thirty-five (35) days, thecourt may enter a judgment against you for the'relief plaintiff demands, plus interest and costs ofsuit. If judgment is entered against you, the Sheriff may seize your money, wages or property topay all or part of the judgment.

LOCKS LAW FIRNILLC * AITQRAEYSATL4W457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



Dated: July 7, 2012 161 ]eiutge M. freezJENNIFER M. PEREZ, Acting ClerkSuperior Court of New Jersey

Name of Defendant to be Served: CHEMTURA CORP., f/k/a CHEMITURA USACORP., /k/a CROMPTON MANUFACTURINGCO., INC. (CMCI) f/k/a UNIROYAL CHEMICALCORP., INC. (UCCI)

Addr ess of Defendant to be Served: ILLINOIS CORPORATION SERVICE801 Adlai Stephenson DriveSpringfield, IL 62703

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * A7-TORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


M IDDLESEX VICINAGE CIVIL DIVISION

P o BOX 2633

56 PATERSON STREET


TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICE


COURT HOURS


RE: PEAGLER ISAIAH VS AAROMA HOLDINGS INC


THE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ASS IGNED TO: TRACK 3.


FROM SERVICE ON THE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST..

THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS: HON MARTIN KRAVARIK


AT: (732) 519-3728 EXT 3728.


PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES-OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE

WITH R.4;SA-2.

ATTENTION:

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC


SUITE 500


JUNBURO


A endix XII-B1 UEIO OR

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMNWE(PAYMEN TYPE: OCK CG EOCA

if information above the black bar is not complete o0 D T:

if attorney's signature Is not affixed. FS1.1PER!OA1I COL

ATTRNY/PO E NMETELEPHONE NUMBER COUNTY OF VENUE

Karl Friedrichs, Esquire (856) 663-8200 MiddlesexFIRM NAME (if applicable) DOCKET NUMBER (When available)

Locks Law Firm, LLC _ p I-I IOFFICE ADDRESS DCMNTP

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 Complaint ______________

YOURr OBLIATIO TO FILE2 ANR AFFDAMTOFMEDT

0YESS NO

DOYUATCPT DINAME OF DEFNDATY PRIMARY INSUANC COMANY litif KNOWNO

CAE YPTES (aMBRsn ouS ofI sam DYESSINA MAPATC NOE YS@NtSra son for currne)NE

CEAE CAACERSTPI ? FOIUPOE F DEEMIIN LIF DCASET ISUAPPRPITS OEITO

OES THE ] STTUES 2 OENNOICAS ROVNIDIE O AYMENT OFM FEE DYESDAT' PRMR NOUAC CMAY INW

UASE THSRSACTERITC ALER THPCURTE TOFAN PECERIALN CASE HACTERIISATO MYDARATINDVUAMNGENTOACLETD

DO DORIE YOUE OR YURCENTNEN IF YES, PLAS IDNTFYTH

DEA ISBII? [:YE ACOM ODTONS DYESIA E NO RQESUSCCMOAIN:S

USE~ ~ ~ ~~~~~DE THI NOAC IF YLR H OR OAYSEILCSHRCESTFOR HAT L WANAGE: A MNGMETORACLEAE

I certify that confidential perso identifi have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will beredacted from all dcu ents sub d in th uture in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)

ATTORNEY SIGNATURE:



... ..... . .



CASE TYPES (Choose one and enter number of case type in appropniate space on the reverse side.)

Track I - 150 days' discovery151 NAME CHANGE175 FORFEITURE302 TENANCY399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Complex Commercal or Construction)502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only)505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (INCLUDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS)506 PIP COVERAGE510 UIM or UIM CLAIM511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT512 LEMON LAW801 SUMMARY ACTION802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION)999 OTHER (Briefly describe nature of action)

Track 11 -300 days' discovery305 CONSTRUCTION509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD)599 CONTRACTICOMMERCIAL TRANSACTION603 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY605 PERSONAL INJURY610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PROPERTY DAMAGE699 TORT -OTHER

Track III - 450 days' discovery005 CIVIL RIGHTS301 CONDEMNATION602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE606 PRODUCT LIABILITY607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE608 TOXIC TORT609 DEFAMATION616 WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES617 IN VERSE CONDEMNATION618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Track IV - Active Case Management by Individual Judge 1 450 days' discovery156 ENVIRONMENTAL/ENVIRON MENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION303 MT. LAUREL508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION514 INSURANCE FRAUD701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS


Mass Tort (Track IV)248 CIBA GEIGY 279 GADOLINIUM266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT) 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL271 ACCUTANE 282 FOSAMAX272 BEXTRA/CELEBREX 283 DIGITEK274 RISPERDAL/SEROOUELJZYPREXA 284 NUVARING275 ORTHO EVRA 286 LEVAQUIN277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE 601 ASBESTOS278 ZOMETA/AREDIA 619 VIOXX

If you believe this case requires a track other than that provided above, please Indicate the reason on Side 1,In the space under "Case Characteristics."Please ch~eck off each applicable category:

DVerbal Threshold El Putative Class Action []Title 59



SUPERIOR COURTMIDDLESEX COUNT YRECEIVED & FILED

LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 SEP 1~ fh

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002(856) 6663-8200 GRLOGORY EDWARDS

DEPUTY CLERKAttorneys for Plaintiff OF SUPERIOR COURT

By: Karl Friedrichs, Esquire

ISAIAH PEAGLER ) SUPERIOR COURT OF) NEW JERSEY) LAW DIVISION:


) DOCKET NO: L 0V.)

CIVIL ACTION

AAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,CENTROME, INC., d~h/a ADVANCED BIOTECH, COMPLAINT AND JURY

BASF CORPORATION, DEMANDBASF SE,BER.IE INCORPORATED,BUSH BOAKE ALLEN, INC.,CHIEMTURA CORP., f/k/a CHEMTUIRA USA )CORP. f/k/a CROMPTON MANUFACTURING)CO., INC. (CMCI) f/Ida UNIROYAL)CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCCI),)CHEMTURA CANADA CO./C.I.E. f/a)CROMPTON COMPANY/C.I.E. f/k/a)UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. LIMITED/C.I.E.)f/k/a UNIROYAL LTD.,)CUR. HANSEN, INC.,)CITRUS AND ALLIED ESSENCES LTD., )DALIAN LUCK FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES USA, INC.,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES B.V.,)DUANE STREET CAPITAL, LLC,)ELAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,)FIRST ILLES INVESTMENTS, LLC,)FLEURCHEM, INC.,)FRUTAROM USA INC.)GIST-BROCADES SAVORY INGREDIENTS, INC.,)GOLD COAST INGREDIENTS INC.,)

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .ATORNEYSATILfV

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cheny Hill, NJ 08002


.. . .. .

INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.)ILLOVO SUGAR,)McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC.,)O'LAUGHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,)PENTA MANUFACTURING CO.,)PHOENIX AROMAS & ESSENTIAL OILS, INC.,

SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CO.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION,UNGERER & COMPANY, INC.)USINES LAMBIOTTE SA)

And)

JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-2%,

Plaintiff Isaiah Peagler, residing at 99 Chelsea Avenue, Ewing, New Jersey, says by way

of Complaint:


1 . This Court has jurisdiction because each defendant placed its flavoring and/or




County, New Jersey.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Isaiah Peagler is an individual that works at a flavoring plant owned by

Firmenich Incorporated from approximately 1997- Present.

4. Defendant Aaromna Holdings, LLC, is is a Delaware limited liability company


Jersey 07305.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - ATTORNEYS ATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


5. Defendant Centrome, Inc., d/b/a Advanced Biotech, ("Centrome") is a New Jersey

Corporation whose principal place of business is 85h Fith Ave, Bldg 5, Paterson, New Jersey,

07524.


principal place of business in Florhamn Park, New Jersey.






be



10.. Defendant Chemtura Corporation ("Chemntura") is a Delaware corporation with its


11. Defendant Chemntura Canada Co./Ci.e. ("Chemntura. Canada") was formerly known


and/or Uniroyal Ltd.Ltee. Defendant Cherntura Canada can be served at Chemntura Canada


12. Defendant CHR. Hansen, Inc. ("Hansen") is a Wisconsin corporation wi th its



3

LOCKS LAW FIRM ILLC AT4TORNEYSATLAW

4157 Haddonfield Road, Suite 50,0 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


whose







place

of business is Alexander Fleminglaan 1, 2613 AIX Dift, The Netherlands.



York, 10007.

18. Defendant Elan Chermical Company Inc. ("Elan") is a New Jersey Corporation,



Food




20. Defendant Fleurchemn, Inc. is a New York corporation can be served with a

Summons

and Complaint at its Registered Agent: George Gluck, 9 Jac aruso Dr., Spring Valley, New York

4

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . ATTORIVEYSATLAW

457 Haddontield Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


10977.


can









whose principal place of business is 521 West 57 'h Street, New York, New York 10019.








27. Defendant O'Laughlin Industries Inc. C"O'Laughliw") is a New Jersey Corporation



5

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC A7TORNEYSATLAW






limited



of







can









6

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC A4rORNEYSATLAW
















42. Defendants sold the chemical diacetyl to Plaintiffs employer Firrnenich

Incorporated.








7

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -..ITTORNEYS A TLA W

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Chery Hill, NJ 08002


. . . . . . .


Nature of the Case


operator


46. Plantiff was an employee of Firmenich from2000 to Present.





Duane Street and/or Aaroma are a continuation of that entity and subject to successor liability,


below.





diseases.


but



8

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -. ATORNEYSATLAIV

457 H-addonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


.. .. . . .




both








v. Aceto Chemical Co.. et al.. Circuit Court of Marshall County, Indiana, Case No. CTC 86-200.












9


457 Haddonlicid Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


COUNT IStrict Liability in Tort - Design Defect



56. Plaintiff s claim for strict liability based on defective design is being brought







Defendants.











10

LOCKS LAWFIM LLC . ATTORNVEYSATLAW

457 H-addonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002











COUNT 11Strict LiabilitV in Tort - Failure to Warn



63. Plaintiff s claim for strict liability based on failure to Warn is being brought

pursuant

to New Jersey common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Am. § 2A:58C-l

through 2A:58C-9.






11

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -d'rrORNEYS AT LA l

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


.......... . .


















COUNT IIINegligence



69. Plaintiff s claim for negligent design and negligent failure to warn and instruct is

12

*LOCKSLAWFIRMLLC *A47TORiNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherty Hill. NJ 08002


. .. . ........ ........


Ann. § 2A:58C-1 through 2A:58C-9.













to the Plaintiff:







C. the duty to test, design, manufacture and sell flavoning chemicals that

13

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * AU'ORNEYS ATLAWI



....... ..




risk to users;




risks of harm;












___b. The Defendants failed to craft warnings that would be understood by



14


457 IHaddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry ill~, NJ 08002


......










manufacturing.












15

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -A17TORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cheny Hill. NJ 08002


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations~ set forth in all preceding



Jersey

common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A: 58C-lI through 2A: 58C-9.











that was superior to Plaintiff's knowledge;







16

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .A7TORNEYSATL4W

457 Haddonfield Road, Suie 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


.... .....














COUNT V

Punitive Damages






17

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -AITORNEYSATLAW






and severally for compensatory and punitive damages,, together with interest, costs of suit,


Jury Demand







a. This action as pled is not presently subject to any other action* or arbitration

proceeding.





18

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * A7TORNEYSA4TLAW

4157 Haddontield Road, Suite 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


Datd:By:N\ LbCKS L FIRM LLCKarl FriedrichsAttorney for Plaintiff

19

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -A7TORiNEYSATLAW



Exhibit B-5

Rose Complaint



HERBERT ROSE, ISUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Plaintiff(s)iDocket No.: MID-L-6556-1 I

V.

CIVIL ACTIONAAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,CERIROME, INC., d/b/a ADVANCED ISUMMONSBIOTECH, et a].

Defendant(s)

From The State of ew Jersey, To the Defendant(s) Named Above.

CHEMTURA CORP. f/a CHEMTURA USA CORP.F/K/A CROMPTON MANUFACTURING CO., INC. (CMCI)




LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC A7TORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


If you cannot afford an attorney, you may call the Legal Service office in the countywhere you live. A list of these offices is provided. If you do not have an attorney and are noteligible for free legal assistance, you may obtain a referral to an att orney by calling one of theLawyer Referral Services. A list of these numbers is also provided.

Dated:'July 7, 2012 1,5 Jeimife'4t . fle'wzJENNIFER M. PEREZ, Acting ClerkSuperior Court of New Jersey

Name of Defendant to be Served: CHEMTURA CORP., f/k/a CHEMTURA USACORP., f/k/a CROMPTON MANUFACTURINGCO., INC. (CMCI) f/k/a UNIROYAL CHEMICALCORP., INC. (UCCI)

Address of Defendant to be Served: ILLINOIS CORPORATION SERVICE801 Adlai Stephenson DriveSpringfield, IL 62703

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


MIDDLESEX VICINAGE CIVIL DIVISIONP 0 BOX 2633

56'PATERSON STREET

NEW BRUNSWICK NJ 08903-2633TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICE


COURT HOURS

DATE: SEPTEMB3ER 13, 2011

RE- ROSE HERBERT VS AAROMA HOLDINGS LLC



DISCOVERY is 450 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYS

FROM SERVICE ON THE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS: HON JAMES F. HYLAND


AT: (732) 519-3737 EXT 3737-


PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL QTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE

WITH R.4:5A-2-

ATTENTION:


LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC

457 HAJDDONFIELD ROAD

SUITE 500


JUTDI


SUPMR. COURTi OF nW IKLEMY

ACMS IS NOW ON LENE!S

ThNew Jccsy up Ca~t civilC EseDock~t.idti scb ~ dumd~ b&T md2f

izwv, G~mM1EqUty, Md SPMMI2 civ ?=L

L CG o b WW-&.0mim '- Qnh fns Pag, ambaf

2. &acd gcivl Cms Pub&l Amces"

4. Type inf seetmyu intbz '-S==it bom =d aepth cofio of use;

5. s ged mt ca=by ky . lo sear-by docket, cam n ose afrE~ l ses fm~

6. Tar adockvt==Cbsektdfe =at~ bedocket typ; m docket mcr

7. Sade=rY 1

8Ifz fb- is ~i 1 pAgesdc le Page Dan Amw E= :p c~ofy'o S=D=

tfop 15.kmde of y~s5 yo u= ft ij= nml tzt zoon p... CGBMM


Appendix XII-B1

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT FOR US YCEKSFIEOL

(CIS) PAYMETTYfP'~ 00K 0JC II2CA

000Use for initial Law Division CHGICK NO.

Gil IIINCivil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 AMOUNT:

(6 =00Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c),if information above the black bar is not completed or OVERPAYMENT:

if attorney's signature is not affixed. B3ATCH NUMBER:

ATTORNEY/PRO SE NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER COUNTY OF VENUE


Locks Law Firm, LLCOFFICE ADDRESS DOCUMENT TYPE.

457 Haddonfield Road; Suite 500 Complaint 1Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 JURY DEMAND

DYE YENEON

DOYUATCPT DINAME OF DEFEDANT PRIMARY INSUANC COMANY PliFif KNOWNO

CAE Y PTES (aMBRis IS ofI sam PRYESINA MAPATC NOE E RN(Seraesi for liurrne)

DISPOSITION: T IL N FFDVI O ERT

REATDO YOUE OREOUNINT NEE ANY S IKE YUMES. LAEIETF H

DIALYES P ACOM ODAIN? DE O RQETDACMOAIN

WILL CARINTERISETICR POE NEEDEDN I AE SAPRPITEFRMEITO0Y0 PATE NOV IF YESENT FOR WHAT LANGUAGE

I~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ L cerif tHA coYdnilpro dnii aebe eatdfo ouet o umte otecut n ilbredacted~ ~ ~~~ ~ON frmalcmnssb nTb trinacdaewthRl1:-7.

RevSdR RRENTctv RELATONSHI CN EMLYREMLYE0517EGBO lOHR epan





Track I1-150 days' discovery151 NAME CHANGE175 FORFEITURE302 TENANCY399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation. Complex Commercial or Construction)502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only)505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (INCLUDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS)506 PIP COVERAGE510 LIMor UIM CLAIM511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT512 LEMON LAW801 SUMMARY ACTION802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION)999 OTHER (Briefly describe nature of action)

Track 11 -300 days' discovery305 CONSTRUCTION509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD)599 CONTRACT/COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION603 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY605 PERSONAL INJURY610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE -PROPERTY DAMAGE699 TORT -OTHER

Track 111 -450 days' discovery005 CIVIL RIGHTS301 CONDEMNATION602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE606 PRODUCT LIABILITY607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE608 TOXIC TORT609 DEFAMATION616 WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Track IV - Active Case Management by Individual Judgei 450 days' discovery156 ENVIRONMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAIL COVERAGE LITIGATION303 MT. LAUREL508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION514 INSURANCE FRAUD701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

Centrally Managed Litigation (Track IV)260 Zelnorn,285 Stryker Trident Hip Implants

Mass Tort (Track IV)248 CIBA GEIGY 279 GADOLINIUM266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HIRT) 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL271 ACCUTANE 282 FOSAMAX272 BEXTRA/CELEBREX 283 DIGITEK274 RISPERDALISEROQUEL/ZYPREXA 284 NUVARING275 ORTHO EVRA 286 LEVAQUIN277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE 601 ASBESTOS278 ZOMETAtAREDIA 619 VIOXX

If you believe this case requires a track other than that provided above, please Indicate the reason on Side 1,in the space under "Case Characterlstics."Please check off each applicable category:

DVerbal Threshold Putative Class Action []Title 59



LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 ~ :

(856) 6663-8200Attorneys for PlaintiffBy: Karl Friedrichs, Esquire

HERBERT ROSE ) SUPERIOR COURT OF) NEW JERSEY) LAW DIVISION:

Plaintiff, ) MIDDLESEX COUNhTY

) DO YET,:_

) CIVIL CTION

AAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,)CENTROMIE, INC., dlb/a ADVANCED BIOTECH, ) COMPLAINT AND JURYBASF CORPORATION, ) DEMANDBASF SE,)BERJE INCORPORATED,)BUSH BOAKE ALLEN, INC.,)CHEMTURA CORP., f/k/a CHEMTURA USA )CORP. f/k/a CROMPTON MANUFACTURING)CO., INC. (CMC1) f/k/a UNIROYAL)CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCC1),)CHEMTURA CANADA CO./C.I.E. f/k/a)CROMPTON COMPANY/C.I.E. f/k/a)UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. LIMITED/C.I.E.)f/k/a UNIROYAL LTD.,)CHR HANSEN, INC.,CITRUS AND ALLIED ESSENCES LTD., )DALIAN LUCK FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES USA, INC.,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES B.V.,)DUANE STREET CAPITAL, LLC,)ELAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,FIRST ILLES INVESTMENTS, LLC,FLEURCHEM, INC.,)FRUTAROM USA INC.)GIST-BROCADES SAVORY INGREDIENTS, INC.,)GOLD COAST INGREDIENTS INC.,)

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - AT7TORNEYS A TLA W



INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.)ILLOVO SUGAR,)McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC.,)O'LAUGHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,)PENTA MANUFACTURING CO.,PHOENIX AROMAS & ESSENTIAL OILS, INC., )SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CO.,SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION,)UNGERER & COMPANY, INC.)USINES LAMBIOTTE SA)

And)


Plaintiff Herbert Rose, residing at 404 Florence Avenue, Union Beach, New Jersey, says

by way of Complaint:






County, New Jersey.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Herbert Rose is an individual that works at a flavoring plant owned by




Jersey 07305.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -. ATORNEYSATLAW




Corporation whose principal place of business is 85h Fith Ave, Bldg 5, Paterson, New Jersey,

07524.








be



10.. Defendant Chemtura Corporation ("Chemtura") is a Delaware corporation with its


11. Defendant Chemlura Canada Co./Ci.e. ("Chemrtura Canada") was formerly known


and/or Uniroyal Ltd.Ltee. Defendant Chemftura Canada can be served at Chemrtura. Canada





3

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYS ATLAW



whose







place

* -of business is Alexander Fleminglaan 1, 2613 AX DIft, The Netherlands.



York, 10007.


- - whose principal place of business is 268 Doremus Avenue, Newark, New Jersey, 07105.


Food





Summons


4

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . .4TTORNEYSA7'LAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 * Chary Hill, NJ 08002


10977.


can









whose principal place of business is 521 West 570' Street, New York, New York 100 19.








27. Defendant O'Laughlin Industries Inc. C'O'Laughlin' ) is a New Jersey Corporation



5

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATORNEYS ATLAW






limited



of







can









6

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ArRNEYSATL4WV

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cheny Hill, NJ 08002














the chemical diacetyl as described more fuly below.

42. Defendants sold the chemical diacetyl to Plaintiff's employer Firmenich

Incorporated.








7

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC *A7TORNEYSATLAW

-457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002



Nature of the Case


operator





47. Plantiff, in the course of his employment, was exposed to diacetyl manufactured,


Duane Street andor Aaroma are a continuation of that entity and subject to successor liability,


below.





diseases.


but



8

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . ATTORNEYSATLAPY






both







al.


v. Aceto Chemical Co.,. et al.. Circuit Court of Marshall County, Indiana, Case No. CTC 86-200.












9




COUNT I

Strict Liability in Tort -- Desi n Defect










Defendants.











10

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -A TORVEYS AT LAW












COUNT 11




63. Plaintiffs claim for strict liability based on failure to warn is being brought

pursuant

to New Jersey common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-1

through 2A:58C-9.






11I

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -Af'ORVEYSATL4WY

457 Halddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. NJ 08002















- - monitoring and/or medical devices.




COUNT IIINegligence




12

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC *ATTORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - CheMr Hill. NJ 08002




70. The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distnibuted and sold diacetyl,












to the Plaintiff:







C. the duty to test, design, manufacture and sell flavoring chemicals that

13

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * AlTORNEYSATLAfY

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cheny Hill. NJ 08002





risk to users;




risks of harm;















14

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC A.7TVRNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfkid Road, Suite 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002











manufacturing.












15

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - A7TORNEYS ATLA P

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002





Jersey







80. The information concealed by the Defendants regarding the serious health nisks of








82. Defendants intended to mislead individuals, including the Plaintiff, by concealing




16

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .ATORNEYSATLAW






















17

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC Ar4TORNEYSATLAW



should be in an amnount sufficient to deter defendants and others from the future commission of





Jury Demand








proceeding.





LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .,4TTORNEYSATLAlV



Dated \L ' By:OCKS LAW F I LLC

Karl FriedrichsAttorney for Plaintiff

19




Exhibit B-6

Shoemaker Complaint



LOUIS SHOEMAKER, ISUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Plaintiff(s)I Docket No.: MID-L-6561-11

V.

CIVIL ACTIONAAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,CERTROME, INC., dlb/a ADVANCED SUMMONSBIOTECH, et al.

Defendant(s)


CHEMTURA CORP. f/k/a CHEMTURA USA CORP.F/K/A CROMPTON MANUFACTURING CO., INC. (CMCI)




LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * A7TORNEYSATL4W457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



Dated: July 6, 2012 ydJiiftAL9e'taJENNIFER M. PEREZ, Acting ClerkSuperior Court of New Jersey



LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYSATL.AW457 H-addonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



LOUIS SHOEMAKER, ISUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Plaintiff(s)IDocket No.: MID-L-6561-11

V.

CIVIL ACTIONAAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,CERTROME, INC., d/b/a ADVANCED SUMMONSBIOTECH, et al.

Defendant(s)


CHEMTURA CANADA CO./C.I.E. f/kaCROMPTON COMPANY/C.I.E. Uk/a UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO.

LIMITED/C.I.E. U/k/a UNIROYAL LTD.

The plaintiff named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of NewJersey. The Complaint attached to this summons states the basis for this lawsuit. If you disputethis complaint, you or your attorney must file a written answer or motion and proof of servicewith the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above within thirty-five (35)days from the date you received this summons, not counting the date you received it. (Theaddress of each Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court is provided.) If the complaint is one inforeclosure, then you must file your written answer or motion and proof of service with the Clerkof the Superior Court, Hughes Justice Complex, CN-971, Trenton, NJ 08625. A filing feepayable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey and a completed Case Information Statement(available from the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court) must accompany your answer or motionwhen it is filed. You must also send a copy of your answer or motion to plaintiffs attorneywhose name and address appear above, or to plaintiff, if no attorney is named above. Atelephone call will not protect your rights; you must file and serve a written answer or motion(with fee of $135.00 and completed Case Information Statement) if you want the Court to hearyour defense..


LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * AITORNEYSATL4W457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


If you cannot afford an attorney, you may call the Legal Service office in the countywhere you live. A list of these offices is provided. If you do not have an attorney and arc noteligible for free legal assistance, you may obtain a referral to an attorney by calling one of theLawyer Referral Services. A list of these numbers is also provided.

Dated: July 6, 2012 APB1 Aeuuet . !?e'tzJENNIFER M. PEREZ, Acting ClerkSuperior Court of New Jersey

Name of Defendant to be Served: CHEMTURA CANADA CO./C.I.E. f/k/aCROMPTON COMPANY/C.I.E. f/k/aUNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. LIMITED/C.J.E.f/k/a UNIROYAL LTD.

Address of Defendant to be Served: Chemtura Canada Co.,/C.I.E.c/o Dimitri Makres25 Erb StreetElmira, Ontario N3B 3A3

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * AYTORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



P o BOX 263356 PATERSON STREET


TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICECOURT TELEPHONE NO., (732) 519-3728

COURT HOURS


RE: SHOEMAKER LOUIS VS AAROMA HOLDINGS LLCDOCKET: MID L -006561 11

THE AB3OVE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: TRACK 3.

DISCOVERY IS 450 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE*FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYSFROM SERVICE ON THE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

TEE PRETRIAL JUDGE.ASSIGNED IS: HON JAMES F. HYLAND

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT TEAM 002AT: (732) 519-3737 EXT 3737.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK IS INAPPROPRIATE YOU MUST FILE ACERTIFICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FILING OF-YOUR PLEADING.

PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCEWITH R.4:5A-2.

ATTENTION:

ATT: KARL FRIEDRICHSLOCKS LAW FIRM LLC457 HADDONFIELD ROADSUITE 500

CHERRY HILL NJ 08002JUTDI


SUFMRib COURT ()y 1jW iJsz

ACVS IS Now -ON LINE!s

Th ~Tsy~rCont c a Cm D=4 s=edn=a &=M md ~a

3. Dlab-5a topae po-u Qbakc ags

.

6.yra&htsc sebaf wad3 1hm &x3= tpe; fmwA~ &r~mb ih yo fh

=0]7 =:k

H-. Wnd is~V m= tm g1 bagby scl~d -& aDmAF r =tp=a f=

to l-basid f yam ==- Yam cm lh ics nemezt Mo v~ =-,c~.-J


Aipyendix XII-B1

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT,,. FOR US YCEKSFIEOL

(CIS) ~ PAYMENT TYPE: OCK OCG OCA

,,Use for initial Law Division CHG/IfK NO.-

Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1. AMOUNT:Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c),if information above the black bar is not completed or OVERPAYMENT-



Karl Friedrichs, Esquire (856) 663-8200 MiddlesexFIRM NAME (if applicable) DOCKET NUMBER (Wh~en available)

Locks Law Firm, LLC;OFFICE ADDRESS DOCUMENT TYPE

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 Complaint ISUCherry Hill, NJ 08002 JURY DEMAND

9 YES ONO


Louis Shoemaker Louis Shoemaker v. Aaroma Holdings, LLC, et al.

CASE TYPE NUMBER IS THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE? 0YES 0 NO(See reverse side for listing)

IF YOU HAVE CHECKED 'YES,' SEE N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING606 YOUR OBLIGATION TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.


D YES 29NO IDO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING NMOFDEFENDANTrS PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY, IF KNOWNANY PARTIES (arising out of same DYES ~Ntransaction or occurrence)? -70 NONE0 NO

EI UNKNOWN

THE INORATO POIEOTIS FOR CANO BEINRDUE INT EVDNE


DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THISCASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES D YES 0 NOBY THE LOSING PARTY?

USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATEDDISPOSITION:

SDO YOU OR YOUR CLIENT NEED ANY IF YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY THEDISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS? DYES 0 ND REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION:

WIMLL AN INTERPRETER BE NEEDED?DYES 29 NO IF YES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE:

I certify that confidential persona .(dentifie have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will beredacted from all do~i int submik din the ure in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)

ATTORNEY SIGNATURE:



CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT000 4(CIS)



Track I1-150 days' discovery151 NAME CHANGE175 FORFEITURE302 TENANCY399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Complex Commercial or Construction)502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only)505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (INCLUDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS)506 PIP COVERAGE510 UIMor UIM CLAIM511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT512 LEMON LAW801 SUMMARY ACTION802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION)999 OTHER (Briefly describe nature of action)

Track 11 - 300 days' discovery305 CONSTRUCTION509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD)599 CONTRACT/COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION603 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY605 PERSONAL INJURY610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PROPERTY DAMAGE699 TORT- OTHER

Track III- 450 days' discovery005 CIVIL RIGHTS301 CONDEMNATION602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE606 PRODUCT LIABILITY607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE608 TOXIC TORT609 DEFAMATION616 WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Track IV - Active Case Management by Individual Judge 1450 days' discovery156 ENV1RONMENTAUIENIRONMENTAL*COVERAGE LITIGATION303 MT. LAUREL508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION514 INSURANCE FRAUD701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS


Mass Tort (Track IV)248 CIBA GEIGY 279 GADOLINIUM266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT) 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL271 ACCIMANE 282 FOSAMAX272 BEXTRAICELEBREX 283 DIGITEK274 RISPERDALISEROOUEL/ZYPREXA 284 NUVARING275 ORTHO EVRA 286 LEVAQUIN277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE 601 ASBESTOS278 ZOMETN/AREDIA 619 VIOXX


DVerbal Threshold D Putative Class Action WTitle 59

Reviscd Effective 9/2009 , CM 10517


LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 ,

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002(856) 6663-8200Attorneys for PlaintiffBy: Karl Friedrichs, Esquire

LOUIS SHOEMAKER ) SUIPERIOR COURT OF) NEW JERSEY) LAW DIVISION:


)DOCE NO:

v.~~ ) CYION(

AAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,)CENTROME, INC., d/b/a ADVANCED BIOTECH, ) COMPLAINT AND JURYBASF CORPORATION, ) DEMANDBASF SE,)BERJE INCORPORATED,BUSH BOAKE ALLEN, INC.,)CHEMTURA CORP., f/k/a CHEMTURA USA )CORP. f/k/a CROMPTON MANUFACTURING)CO., INC. (CMCI) f/k/a UNIROYAL)CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCCI),)CHEMTURA CANADA CO./C.I.E. f/k/a)CROMPTON COMPANY/C.I.E. f/k/a)UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. LIMITED/C.I.E.)f/k/a UNIROYAL LTD.,)CHR. HANSEN, INC.,)CITRUS AND ALLIED ESSENCES LTD., )DALIAN LUCK FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES USA, INC.,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES B.V.,)DUANE STREET CAPITAL, LLC,)ELAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,)FIRST ILLES INVESTMENTS, LLC,)FLEURCHEM, INC.,)FRUTAROM USA INC.)GIST-BROCADES SAVORY INGREDIENTS, INC.,)GOLD COAST INGREDIENTS INC.,)


457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cheny Hill. NJ 08002


INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.)ILLOVO SUGAR,)McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC.,)O'LAUGHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,)PENTA MANUFACTURING CO.,)PHOENIX AROMAS & ESSENTIAL OILS, INC., )SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CO.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION,)LINGERER & COMPANY, INC.)USINES LAMBIOTTE SA

And)


Plaintiff Louis Shoemaker, residing at 9819 Lawson Drive, Morrisville, Pennsylvania,

says by way of Complaint:






County, New Jersey.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Louis Shoemaker is an individual that works at a flavoring plant owned

by Firmenich Incorporated from approximately 199 1- Present.



Jersey 07305.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC ATTORIVEYSArLAW457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


5. Defendant Centrome, Inc., d/bla Advanced Biotech, ("Centrome") is a New Jersey

Corporation whose principal place of business is 8 5 th Fith Aye, Bldg 5, Paterson, New Jersey,

07524.





8. Defendant Berje, Incorporated("Beije") is an New York corporation with its



be

served with a Summons and Complaint at its Registered Agent: United States Corporation Go, 33


10.. Defendant Chemtura Corporation ("Chemtura"') is a Delaware corporation with its


11. Defendant Chemntura Canada Co.ICi.e. ("Chemntura Canada") was formerly known


and/or Uniroyal Ltd.Ltee. Defendant Chemntura Canada can be served at Chemtura Canada





3

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - ATTORVEYSATLAW

457 H-addonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


whose







place

of business is Alexander Flemninglaan 1, 2613 AX Dlft, The Netherlands.



York, 10007.




Food


LLC can be served with a Summnons and Complaint at its Registered Agent: George M. iles,


20. Defendant Fleurchemn, Inc. is a New York corporation can be served with a

Summons


4

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC A TTORNEYSA T L4W

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Chffnv Hill, NJ 08002


10977.


can








.24. Defendant International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., is a New York corporation

whose principal place of business is 521 West 57h1 Street, New York, New York 10019.








27. Defendant O'Laughlin Industries Inc. C'O'Laughlin") is a New Jersey Corporation



5

LOCKS LAW FI RM LLC -.4TTORNEYS A TLA W






limited



of

business is 30,50 Spruce Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63103.






can

be ser ved with a Summons and Complaint at its Registered Agent: CT Corporation System, 1201








6

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -. AITONEYSATLA4W

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Chen-y Hill, NJ 08002








of the assets of Polarome to defendant Aaroima.







42. Defendants sold the chemical diacetyl to Plaintiff's employer Firmenich

Incorporated.








7

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . AITORNEYSATLAW

457 Haiddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cheny Hill. NJ 08002



Nature of the Case


operator






marketed, distributed and sold by defendants, o r Polarome International, Inc. to which defendants

Duane Street andor Aaroma are a continuation of that entity and subject to successor liability,


below.





diseases.


but



8

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .A7TORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cheriy Hill. NJ 08002





both


Firmenich facility. Notwithstanding, the Defendants failed to warni of the defective nature of





a!.









54. Upon information and belief, Defendants provided material safety data sheetswith the diacetyl that they provided to the Firmenich plant. That MSDS's did not state thatexposure to diacetyl could cause severe or permanent lung injury. Defendants affixed warninglabels on the diacetyl containers which were delivered to the Firmenich plant. The labels did notrecommend any respiratory protection.

9

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - ATTORNEYSArL~w

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherxy Hill. NJ 08002


COUNT I

Strict Liability in Tort - Design Defect



56. Plaintiff's claim for strict liability based on defective design is being brought


2A: 58C-lI through 2A: 58C-9.





Defendants.











10

LOCKS LAW FlIRM LLC - A TTORNEYS AT LA W




to the lungs, severe damage to the respiratory system and/or impairment of the ability to funiction.








COUNT 11Strict Liability in Tort -- Failure to Warn




pursuant


through 2A:58C-9.



to reduce and/or eliminate exposure, thereto, and/or without warnings that the diacetyl contained



11

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC- .ATRNEYSATLkW




















COUNT I11Negligence



69. Plaintiff's claim for negligent design and negligent failure to warn and instruct is

12




being brought pursuant to New Jersey common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J.Stat.











72. At all timnes material, the ordinary user, including the Plaintiff, did not know of



to the Plaintiff:








13

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . A7TORNVEYSATL.AW

457 H-addonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry H-ill. NJ 08002





risk to users;

C. the duty to. disclose to all foreseeable users the results of their own



risks of harm;












___b. The Defendants failed to craft. warnings that would be understood by



14

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -. A77RNEYSATL0fV












manufacturing.












15

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC *ATTORNEYSATLIW

457 H-addonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002





Jersey

common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58G-1 through 2A:58C-9.














M 82. Defendants intended to mislead individuals, including th6 Plaintiff, by concealing


continuing and increasing the sale or use of diacetyl which they knew was hazadous to persons


16


457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cheny Hill, WJ 08002





















17

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - ATTORNEYSATL4W








Jury Demand








proceeding.


C. Iam unaware of any other parties who should be joint in this action.



18

LOCKS LAW FIRM LIC * .47TORNEYSATLAW



Dated: By:SLW IR~

Karl Friedrichs cAttorney for Plaintiff

19

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - ATTORNEYSATL4W457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cherty Hill, NJ 08002


Exhibit B-7

Titone Complaint



KENNETH TITONE, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Plaintiff(s)No:MDL64-1Docket N. I--571

V.

CIVIL ACTIONAAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,CERTROME, INC., dibla ADVANCED jSUMMONSBIOTECH, et al.

Defendant(s)


CHEMTURA CORP. f/Ida CHEMTURA U SA CORP.F/K/A CROMPTON MANUFACTURING CO., INC. (CMCI)

F/KA UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCCI)

The Plaintiff, named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of NewJersey. The Complaint attached to this summons states the basis for this lawsuit. If you disputethis complaint, you or your attorney must file a written answer or motion and proof of servicewith the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above within thirty-five (35)days from the date you received this summons, not counting the date you received it. (Theaddress of each Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court is provided.) If the complaint is one inforeclosure, then you must file your written answer or motion and proof of service with the Clerkof the Superior Court, Hughes Justice Complex, CN-971, Trenton, NJ 08625. A filing feepayable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey and a completed Case Information Statement(available from the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court) must accompany your answer or motionwhen it is filed. You must also send a copy of your answer or motion to plaintiffs attorneywhose name and address appear above, or to plaintiff, if no attorney is named above. Atelephone call will not protect your rights; you must file and serve a written answer or motion(with fee of $135.00 and completed Case Information Statement) if you want the Court to hearyour defense.

If you do not file and serve a written answer or motion within thirty-five (35) days, thecourt may enter a judgment against you for the relief plaintiff demands, plus interest and costs ofsuit. If judgment is entered against you, the Sheriff may seize your money, wages or property topay allI or part of the judgment.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYSATL4W457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



Dated: July 6, 2012 /61 Jen4e't M. Ye'tzJENNIFER M. PEREZ, Acting ClerkSuperior Court of New Jersey



LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * A7TORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cheny Hill, NJ 08002



P 0- BOX 2633

56 PATERSON STREET



COURT TELEPHONE NO- (732) 519-3728

COURT HOURS

DATE: SEPTEMER 13, 2011

RE: TITONE 'KENNETH VS AAROMA HOLDINGS LLC



DISCOVERY IS .450 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYS


THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS: HON HEIDI W. CURRIER

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT.TEAM 002

AT: (732) 519-3737 EXT 3737.



PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES INJ ACCORDANCE

WITH R.4:5A-2.

ATTENTION:


LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC




Appendix XH1-B1

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT] FOR US YCEKSFIEOL

co~I~,(CI S) PAYMENT TYPE: LiCK OICG [ICA

Use for initial Law Division ______________NO.__

Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 FAMOUNT:________________________

c~b Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c),if information above the black bar is not completed or OVERPAYMENT:





DOCUMENT TYPEf457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 Complain (p 5 4

Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 JURY DEMAND23YES [IJNO


Kenneth Titone Kenneth Titone v. Aaroma Holdings, LLC, et al.

CASE TYPE NUMBER IS THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE? 0 YES O~NO(See reverse side for listing)

IF YOU HAVE CHECKED'YES. SEE N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING


RELATED CASES PENDING? IF YES, LiST DOCKET NUMBERS

DIYES 29NO

DO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING NAME OF DEFENDANTS PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY, IF KNOWNANY PARTIES (arising oul of same D3YES & NOtransaction or occurrence)? 0 NONE

SUNKNOWN

TH INOMTO PRVIE ON THI FOR C AO BE INRDUE INT EVDNE


DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THISCASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES DYES 0NOBY THE LOSING PARTY?

USE THIS SPACE TO ALE RT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATEDDISPOSITION: -

-4 '-) , I

SDO YOU OR YOUR CLIEN4T NEED ANY IF YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE .. L/DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS? [-YES 0N REESDACOMDrN: '.I ,

INTRPRTERBEEEDDES 9 NO IF YES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE:

I certify that confidential personalsdentifiers 11 e been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will beredacted from all docu)))ts submithl in the fu e in accordance with Rule 1:38-7b)

ATTORNEY SIGNATURE:

Revised Effective Wt2009, CN 10517


* CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT(CIS)



Track I -150 days' discovery151 NAME CHANGE175 FORFEITURE302 TENANCY399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Complex Commercial or Construction)502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only)505. OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (INCLUDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS)506 PIP COVERAGE510 UIM or UIM CLAIM511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT512 LEMON LAW801 SUMMARY ACTION802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION)999 OTHER (Briefly describe nature of action)

Track If - 300 days' discovery305 CONSTRUCTION509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD)599 CONTRACT/COMMERCIL TRANSACTION603 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY605 PERSONAL INJURY610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PROPERTY DAMAGE699 TORT -OTHER

Track III - 460 days' dIscovery005 CIVIL RIGHTS301 CONDEMNATION602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE606 PRODUCT LIABILITY607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE608 TOXIC TORT609 DEFAMATION616 WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Track IV - Active Case Management by Individual Judge 1450 days' discovery158 ENVIRONMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION303 MT. LAUREL508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION514 INSURANCE FRAUD701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

Centrally Managed Litigation (Track IV)280 Zelnormn285 Stryker Trident Hip Implants

Mass Tort (Track IV)248 CIBA GEIGY 279 GADOLINIUM266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT) 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL271 ACCUTANE 282 FOSAMAX272 BEXTRA/CELEBREX 283 DIGITEK274 RISPERDAUISEROOUELIZYPREXA 284 NUVARING275 ORRI 10-E_13xA 2-85-LEVAQUIN277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE 601 ASBESTOS278 ZOMETNIAREDIA 619 VIOXX

It you believe this case requires a track other than that provided above, please Indicate the reason on Side 1,in the space under "Case Characteristics."Please check off each applicable category:

DVerbal Threshold LIPutative Class Action [I]Title 59

Revised Effective 9t2009, CN 10517


H J 3 V R COURTLOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC ~ ~457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002(856) 6663-8200Attorneys for PlaintiffBy: Karl Friedrichs, Esquire

KENNETH TITONE SUERO CORTO) NEW JERSEY) LAW DIVISION:


V. &)03iQ () CIVIL ACTION

AAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,.)CENTROME, INC., d/b/a ADVANCED BIOTECH, ) COMPLAINT AND JURYBASF CORPORATION, ) DEMANDBASF SE,)BERME INCORPORATED,)BUSH BOAKE ALLEN, INC.,)CHEMTURA CORP., f/k/a CUEMTUTRA USA )CORP. f/k/a CROMPTON MIANUFACTURING)CO., INC. (CMC1) f/k/a UNIROYAL)CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCC1,)CHEMTURA CANADA CO./C.I.E. f/k/a)CROMPTON COMPANY/C.I.E. f/k/a )UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. LIMITED/C.I.E.)f/k/a UNIROYAL LTD.,)CHR. HANSEN, INC.,)CITRUS AND ALLIED ESSENCES LTD., )DALIAN LUCK FINE CH7EMICAL CO., LTD,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES USA, INC.,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES B.V.,)DUANE STREET CAPITAL, LLC,)ELAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,)FIRST ILLES INVESTMENTS, LLC,)

-FLEuRHEwmeIN., _

FRUTAROM USA INC.)GIST-BROCADES SAVORY INGREDIENTS, INC.,)GOLD COAST INGREDIENTS INC.,

LOCKS LAW F~IRM LLC -ATTORNVEYSA7'LAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - CheMi Hill, NJ 08002


INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.)ILLOVO SUGAR,McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC.,)O'LAUGHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,PENTA MANUFACTURING CO.,)PHOENIX AROMAS & ESSENTIAL OILS, INC., )SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CO.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION,)UNGERER & COMPANY, INC.)USINES LAMBIOTTE SA

And)


Plaintiff Kenneth Titone, residing at 209 Freehold Road, Jackson, New Jersey, says by

way of Complaint:





2. Venue is proper because the cause of action arose, in part out of Mfiddlesex

County, New Jersey.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Kenneth Titone is an individual that works at a flavoring plant owned by


4. Defendant. Aaroma Holdings, LLC, is is a Delaware limited liability company

with its principal place of business located at 200 Theodore' -C-onrad Dr-ive, Jersey City, New

Jersey 07305.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATTORNEYSA7'LAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cheny Rill. Ni 08002



Corporation whose principal place of business is 85h" Fith Ave, Bldg 5, Paterson, New Jersey,

07524.




of business in Ludwigshafen, R~hineland-Palatinate, Germany.

8. Defendant Berje, Incorporated("Beiie") is an New York corporation with its



be



10.. Defendant Chemtura Corporation ("Chemrtura") is a Delaware corporation with its


11. Defendant Chemtura Canada Co./Ci.e. ("Chemitura Canada"') was formerly known

as Crompton Co./Ci.e., Uniroyal Chemical Co.ICi.e., Uniroyal Chemical Limited/Limitess,

and/or Uniroyal Ltd.Ltee. Defendant Chemtura Canada can be served at Chemtura Canada

Co.ICi.e., c/o Dimitri Makres, 25 Erb Street, Elmira, Ontario, Canada N3B33A3.




3

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - ATTORNEYSATLAWV

457 Haddonfield Road., Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. NJ 08002


whose







placeI

of business is Alexander Fleminglaan 1, 2613 AX Dift, The Netherlands.



York, 10007.

18. Defendant Elan Chemical Company Inc. C'Elan") is a New Jersey Corporation,



Food





Summons


4

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -A 7TORNEYS A TL4 W



10977.

21. Defendant Frutarom, USA, Inc. ("Frutarom") is a New Jersey corporation which

can









whose principal place of business is 521 West 5 7ih Street, New York, New York 100 19.








27. Defendant O'Laughlin Industries Inc. C'O'Laughlin" ) is a New Jersey Corporation

with offices at 150 Morris Ave, Suite 207, Springfield, New Jersey.


5

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -. 7TOR]VEYSATLAPV

.457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cheny Hill, NJ 08002





limited



of







can







Aldrich Corporation are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sigma."'


6

LOCKS LAW FIRM LIC -ATTORNEYSATL4 W

















Incorporated.








7

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -.A T0RNEYS A TLA W

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Chieny HilH, NJ 08002



Nature of the Case

45. Plaintiffs employer Firmenich Incorporated ('Firmenich") is the owner and

operator







Duane Street andor Aaroma are a continuation of that entity and subject to successor liability.


below.





diseases.


but



8

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATTORNEYS AT LAW

457 H-addonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cheny Hill. N~J 08002





both


















I nte"ey-otiesNi--wr~l-e-doteEreihpat The labels did not


9

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -A170PJ.EYS AT LA W













Defendants.










ec n rxraerslfDf-nat'rocamn litf u r

10


457 H-addonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002











COUNT 11Strict Liability in Tort - Failure to Warn

62. Plantiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding

paragraphs as if fullly set forth herein.

63. Plaintiffts claim for strict liability based on failure to warn is being brought

pursuant

to New Jersey common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:58C-I

through 2A:58C-9.

64. Th e Defendants designed, manufactured, processed, distributed, marketed, sold




65. LDetenctants tall e to provid wamiflsiltructonwt-teffdiflcel4 t

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -A77ORNEYSATLAW








dangerous characteristics. of diacetyl, the diacetyl was defective and unreasonably dangerous












COUNTU11

Neefigence



12

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -AUORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Che"r Hill, NJ 09002




70. The.Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold diacetyl,












to the Plaintiff:


likelihood, probability and/or foreseeability that the hanms listed herein




________marketing, distribution and sale;


13

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .A77TOJ)fNEYS.ATLAW






risk to users;




risks of harm;















14

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .TORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 .Chery Hill, NJ 08002




I1) not heating flavors above certain temperature;







manufacturing.











COUNT IVFraulentCnealmetofDefeldants

15

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . ATTORNEYSATL017





77. Plaintiff's claim for fraudulent concealment is being brought pursuant to New

Jersey





conceal these facts from the scientific and medical comnmunities, the government and the public,







that was superior to Plaintiffs knowledge;







16

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATT0RJEYSATL4W

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cherry HiIL, NJ 08002




















other persons ff---sagerrbblt-fcuigsbtnilhr.-Teaadfrhscut

17

LOCKS LAW FIRM ILLC AI4TORNEYSATLAW

457 Ha1tddonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002







Jury Demand


Desip~nation of Trial Counsel






proceeding.





18

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -. ATORNEYSATLAW4

457 Haddonfield Road. Site 500 -Cheny Hill, NJ 08002


Dated: By:\ OKSLW l L

Karl Friedrichs 4Attorney for Plaintiff

19




Exhibit B-8

Towns Complaint



FREDERICK TOWNS, ISUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Plaintiff(s)Docket No.: MID-L-6542-1 1

V.

CIVIL ACTIONAAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,CERTROME, INC., dlb/a ADVANCED SUMMONSBIOTECH, et al.

Defendant(s)

From The State of New Jersey To the Defendant(s) Named Above:

CHEMTURA CORP.

The plaintiff, named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of NewJersey. The Complaint attached to this summons states the basis for this lawsuit. If you disputethis complaint, you or your attorney must file a written answer or motion and proof of servicewith the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above within thirty-five (35)days from the date you received this summons, not counting the date you received it. (Theaddress of each Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court is provided.) If the complaint is one inforeclosure, then you must file your written answer or motion and proof of service with the Clerkof the Superior Court, Hughes Justice Complex, CN-971, Trenton, NJ 08625. A filing feepayable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey and a completed Case Information Statement(available from the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court) must accompany your answer or motionwhen it is filed. You must also send a copy of your answer or motion to plaintiff s attorneywhose name and address appear above, or to plaintiff, if no attorney is named above. Atelephone call will not protect your rights; you must file and serve a written answer or motion(with fee of $135.00 and completed Case Information Statement) if you want the Court to hearyour defense.


LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



Dated: July 5, 2012 161 Jnur..P~~JENNIFER M. PEREZ, Acting ClerkSuperior Court of New Jersey

Name of Defendant to be Served: CHEMIURA CORP.Illinois Corporation Service

Address of Defendant to be Served: 8O1Adlai Stephenson DriveSpringfield, IL 62703

2

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * AlTORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



P 0 BOX 203

56 PATERSON STREET

NEW BRUNSWICK NJ 08903-2G33



COURT HOURS

DATE; SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

RE: TOWNS FREDERICK VS AAROMA HOLDINGS LLCQ


THE ABOVE CASE.HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: TRACK 3.





AT: (732) 519-3737 EXT 3737.



PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCEWITH R.4:5A-2.

ATTENTION:


LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC

457 HADDONFIELD ROADSUITE 500CHERRY HILL NJ 08002

JUMSHA1


Apuvendix XIEI-B1 I~

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMEN1i

se (CIS) PAYMENT TYPE: DCK DCG [ICAUsve for initial Law Division CH CbICKINO. ''

CvlPart pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 F1 u"Frm!->(G muca) Pleading wilbe rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c),&-RFCF117!

if information above the black bar is not completed or OVERPAYMENT:if attor ney's signature is not affixed. BATCH NUMBER:

ATrORNEY/PRO SE NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER COUNTY OF VENUE

Karl Friedrichs, Esquire 1(856) 663-8200 MiddlesexFIRM NAME (if applicable) DOCKET NUMBER (Whben available)

Locks Law Firm, LLC L- SiQ -V\OFFICE ADDRESS DOCUMENT TYPE

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 ComplaintCherry Hill, NJ 08002 JURY DEMAND

N YES ONO



DYES 29NODO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING NAEO EEDANTS PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY, IF KNOWNANY PARTIES (arising out of same DYES 0 NOtransaction or occurrence)? CNONE

~UNKNOWNTH INOMTO PRVIEDON THI FOR CANO BEINRDUE INT EVIDNE


DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THISCASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES 0YES NOBY THE LOSING PARTY?

USE THIS SPACE TO ALERTTHE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATEDDISPOSITON:

~ DOYOU R YUR CLIENT NEED ANY IF YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY THEDSBUYACOMMODATIONS? DYES CD NO REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION:

_____WILL AN INTERPRETER BE NEEDED?7 _____________________________

___ _ SS 14O IFYES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE:

I certify that confid tial persona ntifiers ba; been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will beredacted from all doSe ts submit vin the futut ip accordance with Rlule 1:38-7(b)

ATTORNEY SIGNATURE:



CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT(3 (CIS)



Track 1- 150 days' discovery151 NAME CH-ANGE175 FORFEITURE302 TENANCY399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Complexc Commercial or Construction)502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only)505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (INCLUDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS)506 PIP COVERAGE510 LIMor UIM CLAIM511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT512 LEMON LAW801 SUMMARY ACTION802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION)999 OTHER (Briefly describe nature of action)

Track 11 -300 days' discovery305 CONSTRUCTION509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD)599 CONTRACT/COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION603 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY605 PERSONAL INJURY610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE -PROPERTY DAMAGE699 TORT -OTHER

Track III-450 days' discovery005 CIVIL RIGHTS301 CONDEMNATION602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE606 PRODUCT LIABILITY607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE608 TOXIC TORT609 DEFAMATION616 WHISTLEBLOWER / CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION61B LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Track IV - Active Case Management by Individual Judge /450 days' discovery156 ENVIRONMENTAIJENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION303 MT. LAUREL508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION514 INSURANCIEFRAUD701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

Centrally Managed Utigation (Track IV)280 Zelnorm285 Stryker Trident Hip Implants

Mass Tort (Track IV)248 CIBA GEIGY 279 GADOLINIUM266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT) 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL271 ACCUTANE 282 FOSAMAX272 BEXTRA/CELEBREX 283 DIGITEK274 RISPERDAUSEROQUEIJZYPREXA 264 NUVARING

- 275-ORTHO-EVRA 286 _LEVAQUIN _____

277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE -601 ASBESTOS278 ZOMETA/AREDLA 619 VIOXX

If you believe this case requires a track other than that provided above, please Indicate the reason on Side 1,In the space under "Case Characteristics."Please check off each applicable category:

DVerbal Threshold E] Putative Class Action ELTitle 59

Revised Effective 9/2009. CN 10517


clv!L 7'rcf0

LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC i)c~m Q1 7,457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 !~'1,-/ E i

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 -,V SEP 12 p ~~

(856) 6663-8200Attorneys for Plaintiff ELD&CP

By: Karl Friedrichs, Esquire

FREDERICK TOWNS ) SUPERIOR COURT OF) NEW JERSEY) LAW DIVISION:


) DOCKET NO:

V.)) CIVIL ACTION

AAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,)CENTROME, INC., dlbla ADVANCED BIOTECH, ) COMPLAINT AN]) JURY

BASF CORPORATION, DEMANDBASF SE,)BERJE INCORPORATED,%BUSH BOAKE ALLEN, INC.,)CHEMTURA CORP., f/Ida CHEMITURA USA )CORP. f/k/a CROMPTON MANUFACTURING)CO., INC. (CMCI) f/k/a UNIROYAL)CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCCI),)CHEMTURA CANADA CO./C.I.E. f/k/a)

CROMPTON COMPANY/C.I.E. f/k/a)UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. L1MITED/C.I.E.)f/k/a UNIROYAL LTD.,)CHR. HANSEN, INC.,CITRUS AND ALLIED ESSENCES LTD., )DALIAN LUCK FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD,)

DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES USA, INC.,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES B.V.,)DUANE STREET CAPITAL, LLC,)ELAN CHEMICAL COMEPANY,)FIRST ILLES INVESTMENTS, LLC,)

FLEURCHEM-.INC,__FRUTAROM USA INC.)GIST-BROCADES SAVORY INGREDIENTS, INC.,)GOLD COAST INGREDIENTS INC.,)


457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500.- Cherry I-ilL. NJ 08002


INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.)ILLOVO SUGAR,)McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC.,)O'LAUGHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,)PENTA MANUFACTURING CO.,)PHOENIX AROMAS & ESSENTIAL OILS, INC., )SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CO.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION,)liNGERER & COMPANY, INC.)USINES LAMBIOTTE SA)

And)


Plaintiff Frederick Towns, residing at 1000 W. 8th, Plainsboro, New Jersey, says by way

of Complaint:






County, New Jersey.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Frederick Towns is an individual that works at a flavoring plant owned

by Firmenich Incorporated from approximately 1998- Present.

4. Defendant Aaroma. Holdings, LLC, is. is a Delaware limited liability company

with its principal place of business located at 200 Theodore Conracdflrve, Jersey City, New

Jersey 07305.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATTORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cheny Hill. NJ 08002



Corporation whose principal place of business is 8 5 d' Fith Aye, Bldg 5, Paterson, New Jersey,

07524.





8. Defendant Berje, lncorporated("Berje") is an New York corporation with its



be



10.. Defendant Chemntura Corporation ("Chemntura") is a Delaware corporation with its


11. Defendant Chemntura Canada Co.ICi.e. ("Chemntura Canada") was formerly known


and/or Uniroyal Ltd.Ltee. Defendant Chemtura Canada can be served at Chemtura Canada





3

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -A7TORNEYS ATLAfY

-157 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cbeny Hill. NJ 08002


whose







place

of business is Alexander Fleminglaan 1, 2613 AX Dlft, The Netherlands.


with its principal place of business located at 105 Duane Street, Suite,46H, New York, New

York, 10007.




Food





Summons


4

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC A.TTORNEYS ATLAW



10977.

21. Defendant Frutarom USA, Inc. ("Frutaromn") is a New Jersey corporation which

can









whose principal place of business is 521 West 57h Street, New York, New York 100 19.

25. Defendant Illovo Sugar Limited C"Illovo") is a South African corporation with its







27. Defendant O'Laughlin Industries Inc. C'O'Laughlin") is a New Jersey Corporation



5

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYSArLAW






limited



of







can




corporation who designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, and/or marketed the. chemical diacetyl



Aldrich Corporation are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Sigma."1


6

LOCKS LAW I1RM LLC AT4TORNEYSATLAW




37. Polaromne International, Inc., now known as Emoral, Inc., sold the chemical













Incorporated.








7

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .A77ORNJEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500.- Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



Nature of the Case


operator




to diacetylI during this employment.



Duane Street andor Aaroma are a continuation of that* entity and subject to successor liability.


below.





diseases.


but



8

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . AITORNEYSATLAW






both


Eirmenich facility. Notwithstanding, the Defendants failed to warn of the defective nature of





al.













9

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * ATTORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 -Chenry Hill. NJ 08002












Defendants.










61. As a drctn roximateresultof-Defendants ecncoalment-P4aintiff-ffers-------

10

LOCKS LAW FIRLM LLC -ATTORJEYSATLAW

457 H-addonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cheny Hill, NJ 08002











COUNT 11





pursuant


through 2A:58C-9.

























COUNT IIINegligence



Plain itf s c aim for z gligent-deign-mnd-negiigent-fail -e-to W81Thftf'din.tract is

12


457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. NJ 08l002







* substantial contributing factor in causing the following human illnesses, injuries and conditions:









to the Plaintiff:

a. the duty to warni all foreseeable users of the Defendants' diacetyl of the







13

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -. ATORNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Chenry Hill, NJ 0W02





risk to users;




risks of harm;















14

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - 17TORNEYSATLAWV

4157 H-addonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cherry Hill. NJ 08002











manufacturing.


from respiratory injuries including but not limited to, severe, penmanent, and progressive damage




earning capacity and have expended money for medi cal treatment, medication, medical





COUNT IVF-ralzdlent-Concealulent-of-Defefldanfts

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - ATTORNEYSATLIW

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 50)0 - Clieny Hill, NJ 08002




77. Plaintiff's claim for fraudulent concealment is being brought pursuant to New

Jersey













b. Defendants had a relationship of trust and/or confidence with Plaintiff;, and


= 82. Defendants intended to mislead individuals, including the Plaintiff, by concealing




16
















attorneys' fees, and all such other and fuirther relief that the Court deems just.

COUNTYVPunitive Damages





-te-esrsta w s i rbabiloAAY s n-sb~ tial hr.TeAw~~ for tbis count____

17









Jury Demand








proceeding.





18

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . ATTORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 - Cherry Hill, NJ 08002


Dated: By:LOCKS LA LLCKarl Friedrichs

Attorney for Plaintiff

19

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - A TTORNEYS A TLA W



Exhibit B-9

Williams Complaint



JOHN WILLIAMS, ISUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION: MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Plaintiff(s)iDocket No.: MID-L-6543-11

V.

CIVIL ACTIONAAROMA HOLDINGS, LLC.,CERTROME, INC., cl/b/a ADVANCED ISUMMONSBIOTECH, et al.

Defendant(s)


CIIEMTURA CORP. f/a CHEMTURA USA CORP.F/K/A CROMPTON MANUFACTURING CO., INC. (CMCI)



If you do not file and serve a written answer or motion within thirty-five (35) days, thecourt may enter a judgment against you for the relief plaintiff demands, plus interest and costs ofsuit. If judgment is entered against you,, the Sheriff may seize your money, wages or property topay all or part of the judgment.

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * A7TORNEYSATLAWF457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



Dated: July 6, 2012 lol1 jeiuge' Ait. Ye'szJENNIFER M. PEREZ, Acting ClerkSuperior Court of New Jersey



LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC * A77ORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 * Cherry Hill, NJ 08002



P 0 BOX 2633

56 PATERSON STREET




COURT HOURS


RE: WILLIAMS JOHN VS AAROMA HOLDINGS LLC







AT: (732) 519-3737 EXT 3737.


CERTIFICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FILING OF YOUR*PLEADING.

PL*AINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE

WITH R.4:5A-2.ATTENTION:

ATT: KARL* FRIEDRICHS

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC



JUTDI


Aimendix XH1-B1

CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENTr FOR US YCEKFIEOL

(CIS) PAYMENT TYPE: QICK OCG OCA

Use for initial Law Division CHGICK NO.

~ . ~ Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 AMOUNT:

Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c),if information above the black bar is not completed or OVERPAYMENT:


DOCUMENT TYPE

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 Complaint (~ y{Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 JURY DEMAND

0 YES DINO


John Williams John Williams v. Aaroma Holdings, LLC, et al.

CASE TYPE NUMBER IS THIS A PROFESSIONATL MALPRACiCE CE?:: YESi ONO

(See reverse side for listing) FIF YOU HAVE CHECKED 'YES. SEE N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING

606 YOUR OBLIGATION TO FI LE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.


0 YES ~NO I

DO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING NAME OF DEFNiN: PRIAR INURNC CMAY. IF KNOWN

ANY PARTIES (arising out of same DYES O NO

transaction or occurrence)? D NONE

1 9l UNKNOWN


00 PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT, IFYSISTA

PAST OR RECURRENT REAINHP 0: EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE E0 FRIENDINEIGHBOR 0 OTHER (explain)

RELATIONSHIP? DYES ZINO [0 FAMILIAL 0BUSINESS

DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THISCASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES 0YES 0 NOBY THE LOSING PARTY?

USE TIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COR OAYSEILCS HRCEISISTA A ARN NMULA EMEN OR ACCELERATED

CD

00 YOU OR YOUR CLIENT NEED ANY IF YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE t)--

DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS? DYES O NO REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION:-A

ReIsedA INEEEffR BE9 CNEEDED?





Track I - 10 days' discovery151 NAME CHANGE175 FORFEITURE302 TENANCY399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Complex Commercial or Construction)502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only)505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (INCLUDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS)506 PIP COVERAGE510 LIMor UIM CLAIM511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT512 LEMON LAW801 SUMMARY ACTION802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION)999 OTHER (Briefly descibe nature of action)

Track 11 -300 days' discovery305 CONSTRUCTION509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD)599 CONTRACT/COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION603 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY605 PERSONAL INJURY610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PROPERTY DAMAGE699 TORT -OTHER

Track III -450 days' discovery005 CIVIL RIGHTS301 CONDEMNATION602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE606 PRODUCT LIABILITY607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE608 TOXIC TORT609 DEFAMATION616 wHISTLEBLOWER I CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Track IV - Active Case Management by Individual Judge 1450 days' discovery156 ENV1RONMENTAIJENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION303 MT. LAUREL508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION514 INSURANCE FRAUD701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS


Mass Tort (Track IV)248 CIBA GEIGY 279 GADOLINIUM266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT) 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL271 ACCUTANE 282 FOSAMAX272 BEXTRAJCELEBREX 283 DIGITEK274 RISPERDAL/SEROOUEL/ZYPREXA 284 NUVARING275 ORTHO EVRA 286 LEVAQUIN277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE 601 ASBESTOS278 ZOMETA/AREDIA 619 VIOXX


FD Verbal Threshold D- Putative Class Action D-Title 59



CV I LFN.J. SUPE

LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC MIDDLESE,457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 3 E(856) 6663-8200Attorneys for PlaintiffBy: Karl Friedrichs, Esquire

JOHN WILLIAMS ) SUPERIOR COURT OF) NEW JERSEY) LAW DIVISION:


) DOCKET NO:

V.)) CIVIL ACTION

AAROMAHOLDINGS, LLC.,

CENTROME, INC., dlb/a ADVANCED BIOTECH, ) COMPLAINT AND JURYBASF CORPORATION, ) DEMANDBASF SE,)BERJE INCORPORATED,BUSH BOAKE ALLEN, INC.,)CHEMTURA CORP., f/Ida CHEMTURA USA )CORP. f/ka CROMPTON MANUFACTURING)CO., INC. (CMC1) f/k/a UNIROYAL)CHEMICAL CORP., INC. (UCCI),)CHEMTURA CANADA CO./C.I.E. f/k/a)CROMPTON COMPANY/C.I.E. f/k/a)UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO. LIMITED/C.I.E.)f/Ida UNIROYAL LTD.,)CHR. HANSEN, INC.,)CITRUS AND ALLIED ESSENCES LTD., )DALIAN LUCK FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD,)

DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES USA, INC.,)DSM FOOD SPECIALTIES B.V.,)DUANE STREET CAPITAL, LLC,)ELAN CHEMICAL COMPANY,)FIRST ILLES INVESTMENTS, LLC,)FLEURCHEM, INC.,)FRUTAROM USA INC.)GIST-BROCADES SAVORY INGREDIENTS, INC.,)GOLD COAST INGREDIENTS INC.,)

LOCKS LAW FIRIM LLC . ATTORNEYSATL'IW

457 Haddonfield Read, Suite 500 - Cherty Hill, NJ 08002


INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC.)ILLOVO SUGAR,)McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC.,)O'LAUGHLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,)PENTA MANUFACTURING CO.,)PHOENIX AROMAS & ESSENTIAL OILS, INC., )SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CO.,)SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION,)UNGERER & COMPANY, INC.)USINES LAMBIOTTE SA)

And)


P laintiff John Williams, residing at 336 North Broad Street, Trenton, New Jersey, Says

*by way of Complaint:






County, New Jersey.

Parties

3. Plaintiff John Williams is an individual that works at a flavoring plant owned by




Jersey 07305.





Corporation whose principal place of business is 85h Fith Aye, Bldg 5, Paterson, New Jersey,

07524.





8. Defendant Berje, Incorporated("Beije") is an New York corporation with its



be



10.. Defendant Chemtura Corporation ("Chemntura") is a Delaware corporation with its


11. Defendant Chemtura Canada Co./Ci.e. ("Chemrtura Canada") was formerly known

as Crompton Co./Ci.e., Uniroyal Chemical Co.ICi.e., Uniroyal Chemical LimitedlLimitess,

and/or Uniroyal Ltd.Ltee. Defendant Chemitura Canada can be served at Chemtura Canada





3

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC . A7TORNEYSATLAW-



whose






16. Defendant DSM Food Specialties B, is a Dutch corporation whose principal

place

of business is Alexander Fleminglaan 1, 2613 AX Dift, The Netherlands.



York, 10007.




Food





Summons


4

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .A477'OREYSATLAW



10977.

21. Defendant Frutaromn USA, Inc. ("Frutarom") is a New Jersey corporation which

can



22. Defendant Gist-Brocades Savory Ingredients, Inc. ('Gist Savory") is Delaware






whose principal place of business is 521 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019.








27. Defendant O'Laughlin Industries Inc. C"O'Laughlin"') is a New Jersey Corporation



5


457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. NJ 08002 t





limited



of







can

be served with a Sunumons and Complaint at its Registered Agent: CT Corporation System, 1201








6

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -ATTORNEYS ATLA W











Predecessor entity Polarome International, Inc. As the continuation of the Polarome International,






Incorporated.








7





Nature of the Case


operator






marketed, distributed and sold by defendants, or Polarome International, Inc. to which defendants

Duane Street and/or Aaroma are a continuation of that entity and subject t o successor liability.


below.





diseases.


but



8

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .ATTORNEYSATL4W

457 Haddoatield Road. Suite 500 - Chay Hill, NJ 08002





both







al.












labels on the diacetyl containers which were delivered to the Finnenich plant. The labels did not


9

LOCKS LAW F~IRM LLC -ATTORNEYSATLAW



COUNT I

Strict Liability in Tort -- Design Defect

55. Plain Itiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in all preceding









Defendants.











10






Plaintiff suffers and has Suffered physical pain, mental and emotional distress, and/or loss of






attorneys' fees, and all such other and fuirther relief that the Court deems just.

COUNT 11




63. Plaintiff's claim for strict liability based on failure to warn is being brought

pursuant


through 2A:58C-9.






I11

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - A7TOIRNEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 50 0 Cheriy Hill, N'J 08002



















COUNTINegligence




12

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .,17TORNpEYSATLAW

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cheriy Hill, NJ 08002



Ann. § 2A: 58C-lI through 2A: 58C-9.













to the Plaintiff:








13

LOCKS LAW FiRM LLC . AlTORNEYSATLAW

457 H-addonfield Road. Suite 500 -Cherty Hill, NJ 08002





risk to users;




risks of harm;















14

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC - A TTORNEYS A TLA W

457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Clieny Hill, NJ 08002











manufacturing.












15







Jersey

common law and New Jersey statutes including N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C-l through 2A:58C-9.











that was superior to Plaintiff s knowledge;







16

LOCKS LAW FIRMILLC . ATTORNEYSATLAW

.457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 -Cherry Hill, NJ 08002















COUNTYV

Punitive Damages






17

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC .ATTORN EYSATLAW

457 H-addonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. NJ 08002




)WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants, individually, jointly,



Jury Demand








proceeding.





18

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC -A TTORNEYSATLAW



Dated: \ -By:

Karl Friedrichs L

Attorney for Plaintiff

19

LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC *AITrORNEYSATLAW457 Haddonfield Road. Suite 500 - Cherry Hill. Ni 08002


Exhibit C

August 17, 2009 Transcript


- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Case No. 09-11233

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

In the Matter of:

CHEMTURA CORPORATION, et al.

Debtors.

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

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

One Bowling Green

New York, New York

August 17, 2009

9:51 AM

B E F O R E:

HON. ROBERT E. GERBER

U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE


- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HEARING re Notice of Debtors' Motion for an Order (A) Setting a

Bar Date for Filing Proofs of Claim, (B) Approving the Form and

Manner for Filing Proofs of Claim and (C) Approving Notice

Thereof

HEARING re Notice of Debtor' Motion to (A) Reject Lease of

Nonresidential Real Property with BMR-Landmark at Eastview LLC

and Subleases of Nonresidential Real Property with Progenics

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Momentive Performance Materials Inc.

Nunc Pro Tunc to May 31, 2009 and (B) Enter Into an Agreement

with Respect There to Nunc Pro Tunc to June 1, 2009

HEARING re Notice of Motion to Approve Compromise/Motion for an

Order Approving (I) a Settlement Between Chemtura Corporation

and Solvay S.A., Solvay Chemicals, Inc. and Solvay America

Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9019 Including Debtors'

Assumption of a Supply Agreement (as Amended) with Solvay, and

(II) Payment of Fees and Costs to Counsel for Debtors Pursuant

to Contingent Fee Arrangement Previously Approved by the Court


- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

HEARING re Tricor Refining, LLC's Motion for Relief from the

Automatic Stay

Transcribed by: Lisa Bar-Leib


- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A P P E A R A N C E S :

KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP

Attorneys for Debtor

Citigroup Center

153 East 53rd Street

New York, NY 10022

BY: M. NATASHA LABOVITZ, ESQ.

CRAIG A. BRUENS, ESQ.

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP

Counsel for Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors

One Bryant Park

New York, NY 10036

BY: DANIEL H. GOLDEN, ESQ.

BROWN RUDNICK LLP

Attorneys for Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Claimants

Seven Times Square

New York, NY 10036

BY: ANDREW S. DASH, ESQ.


- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED

Attorneys for Certain of the Diacetyl Claimants and

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

One Thomas Circle, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

BY: RONALD e. REINSEL, ESQ.

HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.

Litigation Counsel for Certain of the Diacetyl Claimants

221 West Lexington

Suite 400

Independence, MO 64051

BY: STEVEN E. CRICK, ESQ.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of the United States Trustee

33 Whitehall Street

21st Floor

New York, NY 10004

BY: SUSAN D. GOLDEN, ESQ.


- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

United States Attorney's Office

86 Chambers Street

New York, NY 10007

BY: MATTHEW L. SCHWARTZ, AUSA

ANDREWS & THORNTON

Attorneys for Francisco Herrera

2 Corporate Park

Suite 110

Irvine, CA 92606

BY: ANNE ANDREWS, ESQ.

(TELEPHONICALLY)


- 7 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT: Okay. We're here on Chemtura. Ms.

Labovitz, I'll take your pleasure as to whether you want to

deal with what I gather is some uncontroversial stuff before

you deal with the matter of the bar date. When we do get to

the bar date notice, I'll have some preliminary observations

that I'll want people to address first. Come on up, please.

MS. LABOVITZ: Thank you, Your Honor. For the record,

this is Natasha Labovitz from Kirkland & Ellis representing the

debtors. Judge, I think we can warm up with the uncontested

matters first.

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. LABOVITZ: There are two uncontested motions and

one resolved matter. I'll present all three, I believe. The

first is a motion to reject three leases. This was essentially

a wrap-around lease, Judge, where the debtors leased real

property and then sublet it to two sublessees. The lease and

the subleases will be rejected consensually. There is an

agreed order that works out the claims of the parties related

to the rejections and the sublessees will agree that their

lease is atorn to the primary landlord such that the claims

against the estate will be minimized.

I don't believe that there are any objections to the

requested relief. Again, this was worked out in advance.

THE COURT: Right. I'm not aware of there being any


- 8 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

either. The motion's granted.

MS. LABOVITZ: Thank you. Your Honor, the second

motion has been handled by our co-counsel in the cases, Duane

Morris. I'm not sure if they are here in the courtroom to

present the motion but it is an uncontested motion to approve a

settlement of a civil action related to certain antitrust

claims. The matter is an action in which Chemtura was a

plaintiff. So it will bring assets into the estate. And in

addition to requesting approval of the settlement, the motion

request authorization to pay fees and cost to counsel according

to a previously described contingency fee arrangement.

THE COURT: Okay. I don't think I need your co-

counsel for that there being no objection. And it being in the

best interest of the estate, it's approved.

MS. LABOVITZ: Thank you, Judge. The third matter was

a motion for relief from the automatic stay filed by Tricor

Refining. Judge, this was a motion requesting that a state

court action be permitted to go forward solely for the purpose

of allowing entry of a judgment in that action. The trial in

the action had been completed just a couple days before the

Chapter 11 filing in March. Post-trial briefing is yet to be

submitted but the requested relief was that the post-trial

briefing be submitted and a judgment be entered. Based on the

Court's ruling in the Quala matter last Friday, the parties

reached a resolution that's generally consistent with the Quala


- 9 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

matter in that --

THE COURT: Figuring the briefing would have no

material adverse effect on your ability to keep business going.

MS. LABOVITZ: Precisely, Your Honor. And, in fact,

there might be some advantage to doing that while it's fresh in

the minds of counsel. So that briefing would be submitted, a

judgment would be entered but no post-judgment activity or

appeals would be permitted without coming back to the Court for

further relief.

Tricor's counsel I don't believe is here today but,

Judge, it's a consensual order at this point and I believe it

was worked out with the creditors' committee as well.

THE COURT: Sure. Mr. Golden, you have no objection,

I take it.

MR. GOLDEN: No objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Right. It's granted.

MS. LABOVITZ: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. LABOVITZ: That brings us, I believe, to our main

event for the day which is our motion to approve the bar date.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Reinsel, you're here on that?

MR. REINSEL: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Come on up, please. Last time I

saw you in GM, wasn't it?

MR. REINSEL: That's correct, Judge.


- 10 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: Okay. Have a seat, please. I assume

you're going to be arguing on behalf of the --

MR. REINSEL: Yes. Your Honor -- for the record, Your

Honor, Ron Reinsel from Caplin & Drysdale representing Karen

Smith and certain other diacetyl claimants as well as the

International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Also present, Your

Honor, is Mr. Steve Crick who is litigation counsel for certain

of the diacetyl claimants. He has certainly the knowledge and

background with respect to a lot of factual issues that may be

involved. And as appropriate, Judge, I'd request that in

addition to legal issues, Mr. Crick have an opportunity to

address the Court.

THE COURT: Sure. I'm going to let that happen. But

the comments that I want you to address, Mr. Reinsel, go not so

much to what might be in the knowledge of the Humphrey

Farrington firm or for that matter in the knowledge of the tort

litigant or prospective tort litigant community, but the issues

that are classically issues of bankruptcy law in this Court.

And, folks, after reading the papers, Mr. Reinsel, I'm

not going to stick a sock in your mouth, I suppose, on your

suggestions that even though the debtors don't want to invoke

524(g) and this isn't an asbestos case they should nevertheless

run the case like it is. But what I really think I need the

parties to address is the quality of the notice that the

debtors propose.


- 11 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

It seems to me, subject to parties' rights to be

heard -- I guess for this, I care more about what Mr. Golden

thinks than anybody else. The issuance of a bar date notice is

essential to keep moving this case going forward. Debtor's got

to get its arms around the universe of claims. So the issue is

does the debtors' proposal skin the cat in terms of providing

adequate notice. Now, Ms. Labovitz says in her reply papers

that the notice for potential diacetyl claimants was

geographically sharpened to give specialized notice for people

who might be in the prospective claimant category and that the

notice says in baby talk these are the kinds of claims that

we're talking about so if you want to file a claim, go ahead.

And especially -- I don't think the procedure, as it's

proposed, imposes sanctions on the Humphrey Farrington firm for

not giving out notice to anybody whom lawyers at that firm

might be aware of. But isn't that one of the best ways in the

world to give notice? It's almost like no good deed goes

unpunished. So when it's your turn, I want you to focus on

those concerns.

Ms. Labovitz, I'll hear from you first if you want.

Or if you just want to reply, you may.

MS. LABOVITZ: Judge, I don't think the case law is in

dispute. It's clear that you've read the papers. I think

maybe I'll just make one comment and then sit down.

The bar date notice process was taken extraordinarily


- 12 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

seriously by Chemtura. They went to great lengths to develop

not only a base noticing program of noticing all known

creditors and giving publication to unknown creditors and

publication around their current operating sites which is

similar, for example, to what the Court has already approved in

the Lyondell case. But they went well over and above that in

an effort genuinely to try to resolve as many claims as we can

in the case.

THE COURT: Well, I think you needed to to avoid a

Waterman problem and to make your bar date stick.

MS. LABOVITZ: Exactly right. Your Honor, we're aware

of the case law in Waterman and in the Third Circuit, seminal

case in Chemetron stating that a publication notice is adequate

but if you want to make your bar date stick, as you noted, Your

Honor, the publication notice needs to be carefully tailored

and focused to provide notice as reasonably as you can to

unknown creditors. And in that, we were mindful of the

Waterman standard which is that you're not required to search

out every conceivable or possible creditor and urge the

creditor to file a proof of claim but you have to make a

reasonable review of books and records. And in this case, we

went well above books and records and made a reasonable review

including even of plaintiff's law firm's websites to try to

figure out in, particularly, the diacetyl case where that might

be pockets of potential creditors and to give publication


- 13 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

notice in those areas.

We drafted the notice in a way that we thought was

clear. I would not say there's particular pride of authorship

in the drafting in that if other parties had had comments or

made suggestions, we were very willing to listen to them. No

one has made any specific suggestions as to how the notice

could be improved or made more clear.

THE COURT: Pause, please, Ms. Labovitz. If Mr.

Reinsel or Mr. Crick had said I'd like you to add a sentence or

two to sharpen up the focus of the disclosure or to telegraph a

particular matter, to what extent would you have an open mind

about that?

MS. LABOVITZ: We absolutely would have and I don't

think it discloses settlement negotiations to say that we urged

that because we did it right in our reply brief. But we have

received no suggestions as to language changes. We did receive

from Mr. Crick a helpful heads up that he thought we had left

one particular plant location out of our noticing scheme. We

researched that over the weekend and that plant will be

reflected in the bar date order that we would propose to submit

to the Court. So we appreciated that one suggestion. But

there have been no suggestions on wording and no other

suggestions as to specific sites that we may have left out or

something that we overlooked in our process.

With that, Judge, I would say I think we've done more


- 14 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

than the minimum. We absolutely have an open mind to other

suggestions. But we do have a need for finality in the case.

So we need, at this stage in the Chapter 11 case, to reach a

noticing program that we and the Court and the creditors'

committee believe is appropriate and go forward with that

noticing program so that we can determine the claims that are

out there and get them resolved so that we can emerge from

Chapter 11.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Golden, I

assume you wouldn't have come down yourself unless you thought

you might want to be heard. Can I get your thoughts, please?

MR. GOLDEN: Thank you. But I like coming to court,

Your Honor. Daniel Golden, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld,

counsel for the official creditors' committee. Your Honor, I

think the Court has absolutely focused on the right issue here

which is the quality of the notice. And as committee counsel,

we have reviewed lots of bar date notices. And I will have to

say that I think that the debtors here and their professionals

have done a particularly good job of trying to ferret out the

potential universe of their claimants and to craft a noticing

scheme calculated to reach the widest possible audience.

With respect to diacetyl in particular, because it's

only the diacetyl claimants that seem to be objecting to the

scope or the breadth of the notice, again, I think the debtors

have done a good job. They have not done just the bare bones


- 15 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

minimum of sending out notices based upon books and records but

they've gone the further step of trying to figure out, actually

calculate, those sites, those particular plant locations where

the diacetyl chemical was used so as to reach the widest

possible audience.

Your Honor, you should be aware, I think, or I'd like

to make the Court aware, that last Monday, the Office of the

U.S. Trustee made an amendment to the appointment of the

official creditors' committee. And by that appointment, three

additional members have been appointed to the official

creditors' committee. They are all alleged diacetyl claimants.

We haven't actually met with the claimants themselves but we've

met with law firms representing those claimants.

We had a session with them on Tuesday, which is the

regular day that the creditors' committee meets telephonically.

This topic did come up. It is not my habit to reveal committee

deliberations and I won't. But I will say that what we did

arrange was an opportunity for the diacetyl claimants' counsel

to have a session with debtors' counsel after the committee

call -- it actually happened on Wednesday -- to try and ferret

out. If there was some information missing, if there were some

locations missing, if there was language missing or there was

better language that could have been utilized, the debtors

indicated very clearly an open opportunity to change the bar

date notice in a way that would allow it to go out timely but


- 16 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to make it better. Unfortunately, the claimants' counsel, and

two of which are here or at least two of which are here, did

not think it was going to be productive to have a line by line

review of the notices or the geographic locations that were

specified. And as I understand from the pleadings, there's

going to be a request for a thirty day adjournment.

I will say, Your Honor, based upon my review of the

case law that's pertinent to this and a review of the actual

bar date noticing procedures, both the publication and the

written notices, we believe that this is an appropriate bar

date motion. Naturally, the creditors' committee wants to have

as expansive a notice as possible. Many of the creditors will

end up with stock in the reorganized company. They don't want

to find themselves in a situation where they are the

stockholders and then you have unknown claimants coming back

into the post Chapter 11 -- coming back and asserting a claim

and saying that they never received timely notice.

I think the debtors should be applauded for their

efforts. We will continue to work with the diacetyl claimants

to the extent that changes can be made. But as we sit right

now, we think it's an appropriate exercise of the debtors'

business judgment and we would support the motion.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Reinsel?

MR. REINSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, Ron

Reinsel, Caplin & Drysdale, on behalf of certain diacetyl


- 17 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

claimants and the Teamsters. Your Honor, let me address the

points you raised and putting aside right now with respect to

what we had to say about being analogous to an asbestos case

and particular potential procedures that might follow in this

case. Your Honor, we're only suggesting that as one possible

track the debtor might take with respect to dealing with these

sorts of claims including, particularly --

THE COURT: Well, pause, please, Mr. Reinsel --

MR. REINSEL: Yes.

THE COURT: -- because if I recall the early Johns

Mansville case, the procedures that ultimately morphed into

524(g) were not then a matter of a statutory law. And in other

cases, A. H. Robins may be one, I'm not sure. I don't do this

as often as you do -- Courts have sometimes found it helpful to

craft -- to let debtors craft similar provisions. But that's a

far cry from saying that they have to.

MR. REINSEL: No. And we're not suggesting it, Your

Honor, that that has to be the approach here. We're simply

saying that that is one approach the debtor might choose to

take in this case since at this point, despite the fact that

it's been on file since March, there is no plan on file or

we're given to understand there's not even plan discussions, a

term sheet or anything else available as to reflecting how the

debtors intend to deal with both the current diacetyl claims as

well as those unknown and future claims that we know will


- 18 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

arise. Until we see that, we think with respect to diacetyl, a

bar date may be simply premature, certainly not with respect to

other commercial claims that the debtor can certainly get its

arms around and deal with.

Let me get on to the tailoring, though, of the notice

that we're talking about because the important thing with

respect to the notice and what the case law says is the notice

has to be reasonably constructed, reasonably intended to reach

those folks whose rights are going to be affected and why we

think that's not here.

While the debtor has done a fair effort to attempt to

address certain specific geographic locations, let me describe

to you why we think that is inadequate. And we have to come

back to how this particular product got into the stream of

commerce and who it ultimately affects.

This is a chemical product that's ultimately turned

into an imitation butter flavor. The diacetyl chemical was

produced by the debtors' nondebtor subsidiary, Chemtura Canada.

Chemtura itself sold the chemical primarily, if not

exclusively, to one source, Citrus and Allied Freight --

THE COURT: Again, I'm not going to put a sock in your

mouth.

MR. REINSEL: Okay.

THE COURT: But in proceedings --

MR. REINSEL: All right.


- 19 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: -- at which you were not

MR. REINSEL: Okay.

THE COURT: -- personally present, I've been educated

on this matter.

MR. REINSEL: Okay. But let me get to the point here.

Citrus, as you know, then resold in various forms and was

resold again and ultimately came down to where it was used. As

a part of the debtors' effort, and as they reveal in their

response to our objection, they asked Citrus to provide it with

their client list. Who did you sell this to? Where did it go?

Where did it ultimately end up getting mixed and exposing folks

to this chemical? Citrus has refused. Despite the fact that

they were in front of you in other proceedings to get an

injunction against the claims brought against Citrus, Citrus

just refused. As a result, the debtor can't represent to you,

Your Honor, that they have any particular knowledge of where

this chemical ultimately went downstream in commerce, who

Citrus sold to, who Citrus' purchasers resold to, to know what

geographic locations it was used. What they did, apparently,

is go through some of the -- but not all -- of the lists of

existing cases and -- okay, we'll use those sites. And they

went to a single -- apparently, a single plaintiff's law firm's

website to look at what they had identified.

When the National Institute of Occupational Health &

Safety sent out their initial notice to food industry plants


- 20 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that believe they used the diacetyl product and to advise them

of this potential threat, they sent that notice to 3600

locations. By contrast, in the debtors' motion, in the site

specific notices that they intend to send with respect to

diacetyl, they identify thirty-six locations involving twenty

companies. Less than ten percent of what NIOSH identified some

years ago in sending out their initial notice.

THE COURT: To what extent was the universe of

entities to which the larger 3600 number to which you refer,

was that diacetyl or did that involve other chemicals

MR. REINSEL: I believe --

THE COURT: -- not marketed by --

MR. REINSEL: I believe, Your Honor, that was the

list --

THE COURT: -- Chemtura affiliates?

MR. REINSEL: -- that received the diacetyl

bulletin -- the bulletin that was attached as an exhibit to our

motion. That's a NIOSH alert preventing lung disease in

workers who use or make flavoring. So it was particularly

flavoring related chemicals primarily, if not exclusively,

diacetyl.

THE COURT: To what extent are addresses available for

the entities beyond the thirty-six?

MR. REINSEL: Your Honor, I don't have that handy

myself but this is the list of just the companies. It goes on


- 21 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

for forty odd pages. Now, whether or not everyone on that list

used, received diacetyl or diacetyl-derived products for which

Chemtura would ultimately be responsible, we don't know because

there has been no disclosure, there has been no discovery from

the folks, from Citrus, to whom they sold it. Now without

that, I don't know how the debtor can stand here before you and

say, Judge, we've made a reasonable diligent effort to find out

where our product went. Even then, we have to consider who is

going to be ultimately exposed.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, by definition, am I right, Mr.

Reinsel, that for the 3,564 entities in the larger 3600 list

that aren't on the thirty-six, there hasn't been a single

lawsuit involving those people --

MR. REINSEL: I --

THE COURT: -- nor have any of them consulted the

Humphrey Farrington firm or any of the other firms with whom

you may be allied?

MR. REINSEL: Your Honor, I might want to defer to Mr.

Crick on that, respectfully.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. REINSEL: What Mr. Crick, I think, will tell you

is that even some of the locations where his existing clients

worked, they aren't on the list.

THE COURT: Well, that's a matter of concern to me but

I would assume you could fix that in about eight seconds.


- 22 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. REINSEL: I would think so but that's just Mr.

Crick. Let's also consider who particularly is going to be

involved in receiving these notices. They are our food

industrial workers involved in mixing chemicals and making

products. They are often case temporary workers, in Mr.

Crick's experience, often Spanish-speaking workers who do not

read the New York Times, likely don't read USA Today, probably

will read, if anything, a local Spanish newspaper, none of

which are on the list.

As a result, Your Honor, of not fully investigating

who the clients are, the clients of Chemtura -- because, after

all, Chemtura is not a household name. Diacetyl is not a

household name. The industrial food worker out in the field or

in the plant is not going to be familiar with either of those.

The notice should be particularly fashioned to get to those

folks given the realities of the case, given the realities of

the distribution chain and the realities of the individual

workers who are going to be exposed. That is not a matter,

Your Honor, of just changing a couple of words or a sentence.

It needs attention to the notice process itself. My clients,

both Mr. Crick and a number of the associated plaintiff counsel

who have been involved in these cases, as well as the Teamsters

who represent folks who work in the plants and who may be

exposed, are more than happy, are more than willing, to work

with the debtor to fashion an appropriate notice and procedure


- 23 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

because it is in their interest as well as the estate to get

this right the first time. If not, it is going to be an

incredibly burdensome and time consuming and expensive process

for the estate just as Mr. Golden came. We don't want to end

up with this case being confirmed and then having all kinds of

claims crawling out of the woodwork coming back to the Court

saying I didn't get adequate notice of this and actually

flipping the burden to the claimant to come in and for the

claimant to then prove excusable neglect, why they didn't file

a claim when, in the first instance, it's the debtor's

responsibility to have undertaken a reasonable effort to

identify and get notice to the folks who needed to get the

notice the first time around.

That's what we want to avoid, Your Honor. And we are

more than happy to work with the debtor or the committee to put

that process together. That should be a matter of -- that

shouldn't be a long and time consuming effort. While I

appreciate the debtor saying that we didn't give them comments

when we first talked on Friday of how to change a word or two

or to give them an additional location, the problem is in the

noticing procedure itself and in the identification of where

site specific notice will go. Unless we can get disclosure,

discovery as to where the product sold, we can't confirm any

list. Once we do that, we can also work on the overall -- the

text of the notice and the content and the approach. And we're


- 24 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

more than willing to do that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Reinsel. Ms. Labovitz,

I'll take reply. But before you do, is there anybody else

who's a party in interest who wants to be heard before I give

Ms. Labovitz a chance to respond? Mr. Crick, is there

something Mr. Reinsel did inadequately in your view?

MR. CRICK: You asked a couple of questions. I

believe I can --

THE COURT: Sure. Come on up, please.

MR. CRICK: It's a pleasure to meet you in person,

Your Honor. Thank you for letting me appear. With regard to

the NIOSH alert, I only want to address two to three short

things. The NIOSH alert was mailed out when NIOSH was trying

to investigate who might be able to get this disease,

bronchiolitis obliterans, and the NIOSH offices tried to

uncover what types of companies may have used the chemical

diacetyl. And they came up with a list -- and I do have the

addresses and I could get this to Chemtura if they would be

interested in sending their notice out or publishing it to

these 3600 companies. But NIOSH did mail that out. Now, does

that mean that -- how many of them contacted my office? Just

one of the main issues that we raised in our brief is that not

all companies know that they bought a product that contains

diacetyl. Now, the popcorn companies that are the subject to

most all of the notices, for years and years when this product


- 25 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

was sold, it was the company's purchased butter flavoring to be

used in the microwave popcorn. They didn't purchase diacetyl;

they purchased butter flavoring. But when this disease process

became discovered and NIOSH discovered there was a chemical

called diacetyl that was found in these butter flavorings,

that's when the popcorn employees began to be more studied.

But even then, the flavor companies didn't uniformally stand up

and say our butter flavoring in your plant contains diacetyl.

In fact, it was the opposite. Flavored companies have an

exemption under the Hazardous Communication Act to not have to

disclose all of the ingredients in their products. So for

years, the fact that a flavor even contained diacetyl wasn't

necessarily even described. This is the problem that NIOSH

had. They didn't know where all diacetyl was being used.

So they sent out a notice. And this is to candy

companies, food preparations, potato chips, cheese as well as

popcorn. Then those companies were eligible to contact NIOSH

for more investigation. But, for example, Charles Campbell was

one of the people who was claiming a hardship who, with your

assistance, we were able to resolve his claim. He worked at

the Brach's candy plant in Chicago. When he first got sick, he

didn't know that he had even been using diacetyl. He just knew

that he had been working in a plant that made candy and none of

his doctors could determine what the cause of his disease was.

It was after he read about a lawsuit that we had in Missouri


- 26 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that someone pointed out to him, well, you used butterscotch.

Maybe that's an issue. And lo and behold, the butterscotch at

that plant contained diacetyl.

My point is, a lot of the plants that purchased the

flavor ingredients don't know that they purchased a product

that contains diacetyl.

Citrus and Allied, Chris Hansen -- those are the two

customers that Chemtura has named. Those companies did sell

pure diacetyl to flavor companies who then used it to make food

products that went to companies like popcorn companies. So we

believe that Chemtura should at least start with the Citrus and

Allied customer lists and the Chris Hansen list and the Ungerer

list to show who the customers were that would have purchased

the Chemtura diacetyl. For that matter, Chemtura Canada itself

may have shipping records showing that it shipped diacetyl

straight to a customer. I don't know that we have the Chemtura

Canada sales records of all those shipments.

With regard to the specific notice, I'd like to point

out that the majority -- almost all of the companies that are

identified to receive notice are popcorn plant companies.

Again, those were not companies that purchased diacetyl from

Chemtura. In fact, if you read the notice, it says if you

worked with Chemtura's diacetyl at these popcorn plants --

nobody at those popcorn plants would know that. In fact, the

diacetyl that came to their plant, as Mr. Reinsel said, came


- 27 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

through Citrus who put its own label on it who sent it to the

flavor company who made it into a butter flavor and that's the

ingredient that went to the popcorn company. So nobody who

reads this notice is going to know that they even were exposed

to a Chemtura diacetyl product.

Last on that same issue of companies, Chemtura is a

defendant in a number of lawsuits. The Campbell case I

mentioned, the Gerardo Solis case, which was supposed to be the

hardship hearing -- Chemtura's diacetyl primarily went to

flavor companies. There are almost no flavor companies

identified in their notice list. Even the very defendants that

are involved in the lawsuits that Chemtura is involved with are

not identified in any of the notices. They would have had the

pure exposures to diacetyl. Mr. Solis, the case that Chemtura

is involved with, worked at three pop -- or three flavor

company plants. None of his plants are identified in the

notices.

What we're just asking is that there be an additional

amount of time to be able to sit down with the debtor so that

we can work out what a larger group of notices should be.

Lastly, on the issue of disease, the notice indicates

that if you think you may have a claim in the future, you're

supposed to file a proof of claim today. This is not like a

car wreck case or even a chemical burn case where you get

exposed to a chemical and you immediately know that you've got


- 28 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

an injury. Many doctors are not even recognizing this as a

disease. In fact, NIOSH has published an article about

bronchiolitis obliterans masquerading as COPD or asthma. And

the NIOSH scientists themselves have recognized that doctors

are misdiagnosing the disease. So there are numbers of people

out there that may have breathing problems, that may have a

flavoring induced lung disease but they have not been diagnosed

by their doctor. And this doesn't provide time --

THE COURT: Yeah. I understand that. And the debtors

responded to that in their reply by pointing out your earlier

brief and associated affidavit that said there was a five

month -- gestation is the wrong word -- for the period between

exposure and manifestation of injury. Are you disclaiming

those earlier statements that were made to me?

MR. CRICK: I'm trying to explain that doctors are not

necessarily diagnosing the disease. Just because someone has a

hard time walking up a flight of stairs or gets fatigued easily

doesn't mean a doctor is going to recognize it as a flavoring-

induced disease. Oftentimes, particularly at the Jasper

popcorn plant, these folks were going to the doctor for a

period of several years before all of them actually got

together and their records were looked at by one occupational

medicine physician who recognized that this was bronchiolitis

obliterans. This is a rare epidemic and they all worked at the

same plant. At that point, he got the federal government


- 29 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

involved. But up until that point, Barnes Hospital in St.

Louis, the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, National Jewish Health

Center in Denver had seen these people at the Jasper popcorn

plant and had not recognized this disease. So it's sort of an

emerging diagnosis.

Charles Campbell went to doctors for two years before

he found a doctor that actually was familiar with this even

disease. I'm not saying when the disease manifested as the

issue. I'm saying that doctors are not making the diagnosis.

That's been one of the main problems that Teamsters has had in

their attempts to investigate diacetyl at plants where their

members were. And that's why they asked us to intervene or to

join -- file some suggestions on their behalf which was --

number one, Teamsters has a strong interest in trying to

protect their workers. They even have a safety department.

And they've been trying to find out among all their member

plants around the country which employees -- which members

might have used a product that contained diacetyl. But because

of the proprietary issues I mentioned, they're not always able

to find out what products their members may have used with

diacetyl; certainly, were not able to find out what the source

was. But even to find out if the products contained it -- they

have plants that made cake mixes that they've now found contain

diacetyl.

But the employers aren't necessarily doing screenings


- 30 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of their employees to determine if anyone has a lung related

issue. So these are mostly blue collar workers. They don't

often go to the doctor for this. It's not a broken bone case.

So they oftentimes can work it without going to the doctor.

And when they finally do, doctors are diagnosing them as asthma

or COPD and they're not getting a clear diagnosis.

But under this, they would have to file a claim today.

And while counsel for the debtor indicated that future claims

are different -- the notice specifically says if you have a

claim that you may get in the future, you're obligated to file

your claim today.

We're primarily asking for an additional amount of

time to work with the debtor on this. We understand that our

office represents certain individuals that have already filed

claims against the debtors. And we can file proof of claims on

behalf of those clients who already brought claims against

Chemtura. But with regard to others --

THE COURT: You can also file proofs of claim on

behalf of people that have consulted you without blowing your

privilege in any way, can't you?

MR. CRICK: Who have consulted us?

THE COURT: You don't have to have filed a complaint

on behalf of one of your clients to file a proof of claim.

MR. CRICK: Well --

THE COURT: I mean, let's just say for sake of


- 31 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

argument -- I don't know whether you've got twenty-five, fifty,

two hundred lawsuits pending. I assume that, like a lot of law

firms, you have people who have come in to you for a

consultation for whom you have not yet filed a complaint which,

of course, is fully understandable. I used to be a lawyer,

too. But you know who you've spoken to and you can file a

proof of claim on behalf of each of those folks, can't you?

MR. CRICK: One of the things that we'd be very

considered about on a case like that is the statute of

limitations and filing a proof of claim in this is going to be

used by other companies to claim that that's the trigger of

their statute date. Now we get --

THE COURT: Well, isn't that only fair? I mean, if

you have a --

MR. CRICK: We get calls all --

THE COURT: If you have a basis for the belief that

you have a claim then you bring your claim against whoever you

think you've got a claim. And I'm not aware in the tort area,

and you can please correct me if I'm wrong, that tort statutes

of limitations are as short as they are for disfavored types of

causes of action such as actions to recover on statutory

penalties or things that have thirty, sixty, ninety or even one

year statutes of limitations.

MR. CRICK: I've been practicing doing asbestos cases

for about twenty some years and I get phone calls regularly


- 32 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

from people who say I was exposed to asbestos last week. Can I

file a lawsuit. Well, those people haven't been diagnosed with

a disease. And the odds are that they probably never are going

to be diagnosed with a disease.

But the same thing happens with regard to this butter

flavoring issue. I walked by a plant, I was in a plant that

used butter flavoring. Can I file a claim? That doesn't mean

that they actually have an injury. And it certainly doesn't

mean that a doctor has ever indicated that they have an injury.

And that's the dilemma that these people would be put in. Just

because they walked by a plant doesn't mean that they have an

injury. But it's certainly going to be used for this --

THE COURT: What's the shortest statute of limitations

you got to worry about?

MR. CRICK: Well, there's statutes of --

THE COURT: Two years?

MR. CRICK: -- two years, there's statutes of one

year. Kentucky has one year. There's numerous states with two

years. And that's one of the main issues that we have here is

people having their statutes begin to run when they haven't

even been diagnosed with a disease. That's --

THE COURT: All right. Anything else?

MR. CRICK: Thank you. No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Labovitz?

MS. LABOVITZ: Judge, I think we all agree that giving


- 33 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

actual notice to every human being who may have been at one

time or another exposed to diacetyl would be, well, impossible.

It's true. That would be impossible, particularly impossible

in this case. And I appreciated Mr. Reinsel and Mr. Crick

going a little bit through the supply chain issues related to

diacetyl in Chemtura's case, in particular, because I think it

underscores the fact that these are the very definitions of

unknown creditors within the bankruptcy lexicon.

Chemtura doesn't know who its primary customer, Citrus

and Allied, sold diacetyl to. And again, this was Chemtura

manufactured the diacetyl in fifty-five gallon drums. Citrus

and Allied broke it up, sometimes relabeled it, moved it on to

-- they noted food flavoring companies who combined it into

something else and sent it on to a third place where it may

have been combined into food. We don't know where it was used.

We don't know who was exposed. These are unknown creditors.

We're doing the best we can to give notice based on places

where plaintiffs have showed up suing -- in many places not

Chemtura, by the way. And I think it's important for the Court

to recognize that Chemtura does not believe that it has any

liability to the ultimate plaintiffs here. It's just been

brought in --

THE COURT: Well, I understand that.

MS. LABOVITZ: -- to the supply chain.

THE COURT: How much time can you give Mr. Crick and


- 34 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Reinsel to give you additional names and addresses to send

notice to without getting off track?

MS. LABOVITZ: We need the bar date notices to go out

on the schedule that we have set out in order to stay on track

in order to emerge before triggering the extension fees under

the DIP that we've talked about in other contexts, Judge. But

there is a procedure already in our proposed bar date noticing

scheme to set supplement bar dates if new categories of

claimants come to the debtors' attention.

THE COURT: If I gave them a week to give you

additional names and addresses, how badly would that hurt?

MS. LABOVITZ: I think we can go with a week, Judge.

We may need to allow an extra week for publication notices in

those additional sites. But that would still give at least

fifty-three days notice before the bar date in October.

THE COURT: Fifty-three?

MS. LABOVITZ: Um-hmm. It's calculated right now at

sixty days notice.

THE COURT: Okay. Continue, please.

MS. LABOVITZ: The key is that these are unknown

creditors. We've done the best we can.

The question of how to deal with truly unknown

creditors in a noticing situation isn't unique or new. The

Supreme Court first addressed in the Mullane case in 1950 and

there have been fifty-nine years of jurisprudence applying that


- 35 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

in fleshing out what's required. The standard is

reasonableness. Mullane uses the word "reasonable" about ten

times in going through. The notice has to be reasonable. The

way you publish the notice or promulgate the notice has to be

reasonable. And Mullane says something really important that I

think we should be guided by. It says in determining what's

reasonable, you have to look at the kind of notice someone

would give if they genuinely were trying. And I'm paraphrasing

the Court, but this is what Mullane says. The kind of notice

someone would give if they were genuinely were trying to reach

unknown creditors and give them notice.

And I think that's the standard with which we have to

consider this bar date. Mr. Crick and Mr. Reinsel said NIOSH

can't figure out where the diacetyl was used. They have a list

this thick of places where it might have been used, maybe, but

that was just places where you use food flavoring. And it's

very clear in this case that diacetyl is only used in butter

flavorings so definitely a subset of that larger list. The

Teamsters can't figure out where the plant was used. I guess

the plaintiffs' bar has tried to figure it out because they've

published lists on their own websites. But, I think, what

we're hearing today is that they're not sure they've been able

to figure out all of the sites.

Now, again, we appreciated Mr. Crick bringing the

Brach's candy factory to our attention and we added that to our


- 36 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

notice list. We can add more if he -- I think he mentioned a

couple of other plaintiffs that he, I guess, didn't mention to

us on Friday but we can add those, too. But the key is nobody

knows for sure. We're not going to have a complete list. But

the legal standard is it's not exhaustive, it's not complete,

it's not even substantial. It just has to be reasonable. And

we believe that we have absolutely met that standard in

determining the scope of the noticing, where it's being

published and where these site specific, diacetyl-specific,

notices are being included in bar date mailing packages.

So I wanted to come back and spend a few minutes on

the reasonableness of the notice itself. The notices are --

the site specific diacetyl notices are included in exhibits to

the bar date motion but it may help if I just read them because

what I heard was the people who were exposed to diacetyl didn't

know they were exposed to diacetyl. I think it was said that

Mr. Campbell realized that he may have had exposure when he

heard the word "butter" and put it together with

"butterscotch", knew that he had mixed butterscotch candies.

Popcorn is another food in which diacetyl was an important

ingredient and people recognized that because of the butter

flavoring in the popcorn. So what we said in our notice was

"From 1998 to 2005, Chemtura Corporation sold diacetyl to food

flavoring companies throughout the United States. Among other

things, diacetyl was used by these food flavoring companies to


- 37 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

make butter flavorings." So we focused right in on exactly

what they're saying. You won't know that you were mixing

diacetyl but you might be triggered by the word "butter". And

then we went on. For every plant that we were able to identify

through the process we went through and we linked not -- the

notice not only to Chemtura but to the specific plant where

people might have had exposure. So the notice goes on to

say -- and I'm reading from one aimed at Berne, Indiana. The

notice says, "If you have any claim against Chemtura

Corporation related to exposure to diacetyl, acetoin and/or

acetaldehyde" -- and, Judge, those are molecular cousins of

diacetyl -- "that was supplied, sold or distributed by Chemtura

Corporation, directly or indirectly, to Amish Country

popcorn" -- so we gave the name of the plant where people would

have worked. So now they've got butter flavoring. They've got

Amish Country popcorn. Maybe that triggers that you might have

a claim. And then we gave the address of the plant in case

there was any confusion.

The goal being that if someone thinks they might have

been injured and they want -- they think they might have a

claim, they should raise their hand.

Now, I don't -- I've represented creditors. I'm

familiar with the dilemma that you sometimes face when you

don't want to file a proof of claim for procedural reasons or

it might impact other strategic considerations. Sometimes you


- 38 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

don't want to file a proof of claim because you don't want to

consent to jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court. I'm hearing

here that you don't want to file a proof of claim because it

might harm your statute of limitations argument against other

defendants. But I think the case law is clear there, too, that

having strategic reasons for not wanting to file a proof of

claim is not an excuse for being exempted from the bar date.

If you want to assert a claim in a bankruptcy case, you need to

stand up and be counted because that's the way the process

works.

Judge, I'm happy to answer any specific questions that

you have. But I think, again, the focus is that the notice is

reasonable; the scope is reasonable.

THE COURT: I have one or two questions. How large a

universe of Spanish-speaking prospective claimants do we have

here?

MS. LABOVITZ: We're not aware. The -- we are aware

that there are some Hispanic plaintiffs. When we asked the

question of the particular attorney who raised this issue and

we said do they speak English and the answer was yes -- I think

there may be certainly some workers in the plants who do speak

Spanish. I'm not aware that there are any exclusive Spanish

speakers.

One thing that we did, because this issue did come up

last week, is we spent some time over the weekend looking at


- 39 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

precedents to see if we had missed something in designing our

noticing scheme. If other debtors were going out and noticing

in foreign languages -- and, Judge, we've reviewed not only

Kirkland's files but we did a pretty comprehensive of mega

cases both in the chemicals industry and outside. What we

found was when debtors are using foreign language noticing, its

because they're getting something we frankly haven't even

really tried to do. They're getting publication notice outside

the United States and trying to bar foreign creditors from

asserting claims in the U.S. And in that case, they do publish

in local languages. So when Grace did bar date noticing in

Canada related to zonolite asbestos insulation, they noticed in

French in Quebec and they noticed in -- I think the name of the

language is Ingituk (sic) for the northern Canadian Inuit

native populations. Similarly, some companies that have done

business in Mexico have noticed in Spanish. TWA and United,

when they were giving notice because of their worldwide

operations, gave notice in other languages. But within the

U.S., we found no precedent for giving notice simply because

there may be Spanish speakers. I think -- look, we have

interest in giving reasonable notice. If it came to our

attention that there were a number of plant workers, again, who

are unknown to us who spoke solely Spanish and didn't speak

English, that might be --

THE COURT: Would it be practical or impractical to


- 40 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

add one sentence in Spanish saying that if you can't understand

this in English, here's a number to call or we'll provide you a

translation in Spanish. I assume you don't want to materially

lengthen it to double publish it in Spanish and English. But

I'm wondering if one sentence in Spanish and giving somebody a

place to turn to if they have a question would be burdensome or

would be practical.

MS. LABOVITZ: I think it's a great idea.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. LABOVITZ: I think we might review and see if we

can limit that to specific notices, maybe just the diacetyl

notices. But I think it's a great idea.

THE COURT: Yeah. I wouldn't contemplate it for the

entirety. But --

MS. ANDREWS (TELEPHONICALLY): Your Honor -- Your

Honor, may I address the Court?

THE COURT: Who is speaking, please?

MS. ANDREWS: This is Anne Andrews. I am the counsel

that counsel for the debtor was referring to in discussing the

language issue. I represent the Herrera plaintiffs that are

part of a group of ad hoc -- and ad hoc committee tort claim

that has approximately sixteen tort claims represented by the

Brown Rudnick firm. I believe Mr. Dash is in court for the ad

hoc committee.

I wanted to address the Court -- and I had not had an


- 41 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

opportunity to make an appearance. Would this be an

appropriate time to respond to something that debtors' counsel

said?

THE COURT: I'll let you be heard but I don't want her

interrupted.

MS. ANDREWS: I apologize, Your Honor. Not being in

Court, I just wanted to make you aware I was hoping to address

the Court.

THE COURT: Well, as I said, I'll let you be heard but

I don't want lawyers in my courtroom interrupted.

Ms. Labovitz, I have a couple more questions but I

don't know if you were interrupted mid-sentence or mid-thought.

MS. LABOVITZ: I was not. I think we can move on to

hear from Herrera's counsel.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I have another one or two

questions. You have some experience in the Solutia case if I'm

not mistaken?

MS. LABOVITZ: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Could you tell me the similarities or

differences in each case, the material ones, between what

you're proposing here and what was determined to be appropriate

in Solutia?

MS. LABOVITZ: It's a good question, Judge. This

noticing program is based substantially on the noticing program

that was used in Solutia. It's also similar to the noticing


- 42 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

programs that Judge Gropper approved in the Tronox case, both

of those chemical companies. And both of them included direct

mailing notice to known creditors and publication notice as is

traditional and added an overlay, both in the mailing notices

and publication notices, that was specifically targeted with

site focused information to areas where there might be

environmental or chemical exposure. And Judge Beatty, in the

Solutia case, paid particular attention to the bar date issue.

She made specific language suggestions that I suspect are

carried through in this noticing scheme. And Judge Beatty had

a particular focus on wanting to make sure that individual tort

claimants were protected, addressed that at the hearing and

made a specific factual finding that the noticing program used

in Solutia was reasonably calculated within the Mullane

standard to reach those plaintiffs.

I was not at the hearing in which Judge Gropper

approved the Tronox scheme. But I do know that Tronox was,

again, substantially similar to this one and was found to be

appropriate and provide reasonable notice.

THE COURT: Okay. That takes care of it for me. I'll

let -- Ms. Andrews, you may speak. And then I'm going to give

Ms. Labovitz and Mr. Golden a chance to reply to anything you

say if they choose to.

MS. ANDREWS: Thank you very much, Your Honor. Again,

I apologize to Ms. Labovitz and to the Court, particularly, for


- 43 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

any interruption. I think perhaps my comment about the

language issue in discussions with intending to improve the

notices -- first, I'd like to suggest to the Court a couple of

things. We were only seated on the tort claims committee, all

three of us, on Monday. We believe that there's a great deal

of work that we can do both with the debtor and among ourselves

as plaintiffs who most of us have just recently met, Your

Honor, through the communications, the notices, the PRs and

then the various materials in order to organize among ourselves

to how to best distribute the notices.

I wanted to let the Court know that a number of other

bankruptcy cases, also in the Southern District of New York,

that have included mass tort notices of committees of which

I've sat on in other proceedings, we worked very closely with

the debtor in making very successful notices and intend to do

so here if given the time. And we do think that there should

be a very short window put on this where we can make

substantial progress since we only first were introduced to Ms.

Labovitz and the agent of the notices in the meet and confers

as late as Friday.

With respect to the Hispanic community, we do believe

in southern California where I address you from today, Your

Honor -- but I do hope to be traveling to New York to appear in

person in the proceedings with counsel. We believe that the

Spanish community is largely exposed and certainly that's


- 44 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

evidenced by the fact that all three tort claimants that were

seated by the trustee are of Hispanic origin. And we would

also -- we think the Court's suggestion is an excellent one and

we'll work with the debtor on trying to ensure that that can be

served better -- ensure notice to this population of exposed

workers.

But what I wanted to follow up was Mr. Crick's comment

to explain in a little more detail to the Court, in fact, that

the Chemtura drums that were shipped out to the manufacturers

that use the diacetyl did not have on them, in many cases from

our experience in discussing and investigating the cases, did

not have a Chemtura label on them. They actually were

relabeled by Citrus and Allied and other distributors of the

diacetyl so that the injured-exposed workers would not have

seen the Chemtura label on the particular drum. So that has

made this case more challenging. And we would like -- given

more time, it is our position, that as that -- this particular

ad hoc committee, we did not -- ours is a limited objection.

And though we wanted to file notice to the known claimants on a

timely basis and are prepared to do so, those with lawsuits,

those that our law firm knows about and our group knows

about -- we just thought that as to the unknown claimants,

particularly given Mr. Crick's excellent suggestion about this

really exhaustive NIOSH list, that we could work in narrowing

that down both among ourselves and our plaintiffs' group and


- 45 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

with other industry experts in order to do that to provide

excellent information for the debtors so that the notices can

accomplish what the bankruptcy court wants these notices to

accomplish and that is appropriate due notice and so that the

fact of late notice and litigation of the late notice issues

can be narrowed as much as possible.

And this law firm has been involved in a number of

bankruptcies where excellent notice and appropriate notice was

sent out both in the Southern District of New York and the

Central District of California in mass tort cases. And there

was, to my memory -- all those cases were confirmed plan of

reorganization successfully. And in my memory, there wasn't a

single challenge to the bar date or any litigation on the

notice when we were working closely with the debtor to, at this

stage in the game, to be sure that the notices were as broadly

and appropriately addressed as possible. And we want to

accomplish that goal in this case as well, Your Honor. Thank

you. I don't have anything further --

THE COURT: All right, thank you.

MS. ANDREWS: -- unless the Court has questions for

me.

THE COURT: Ms. Labovitz, and then Mr. Golden, if you

have anything further you want to add?

MS. LABOVITZ: No. Just a couple of clarifications.

Chemtura didn't ship any drugs related to diacetyl. It was


- 46 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

always a food flavoring component. So I just wanted to clarify

that for the record in case anyone's reading the transcript

later.

In addition, I'm going to repeat what we have said

before. This is not a mass tort case. Judge, we have fifty

diacetyl claimants, many of them indirect. There are many

other tort plaintiffs, diacetyl, having relatively few numbers

of claimants -- known claimants -- compared to other tort

issues in the case. But we believe that the tort liability in

the case is overshadowed by the billion dollars of bond debt

and many hundreds of millions of dollars of bank debt. So I

just wanted, again, to correct that for the record.

Other than that, Judge, if you have any questions --

unless you have any questions, I'll just sit down.

THE COURT: No. You answered them as we went along.

Mr. Golden, anything further?

MR. GOLDEN: Thank you. Daniel Golden, Akin Gump,

counsel for the committee. First, Your Honor, I just want to

correct what I think was just an innocent mistake made by Ms.

Andrews. There is not a tort claimants' committee. There is,

as I explained in my opening remarks, three diacetyl claimants

that were added to the official creditors' committee. So there

has not been a tort claimants' committee formed by the Office

of the United States Trustee in this case.

Your Honor, I think you asked a very --


- 47 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: Mr. Golden, pause, please. How big is

your committee now that it's been augmented by those three

additional folks?

MR. GOLDEN: Eleven. Your Honor, I think the Court

offered a very good solution. We had attempted to get there on

our own. We weren't very successful. Maybe with the Court's

direction, if we adjourn for a week just on this one aspect of

how to modify the notice as it relates to diacetyl and whether

or not we should -- there are other sites we should be adding.

If the Court is suggesting a week's time, I think all of the

parties involved, the debtors, the committee and the counsel

currently representing diacetyl claimants who represent

claimants on the committee, should be able to, I would think,

work together to expand the list in an appropriate way.

I do think, though, we've learned some very important

aspects this morning. We do not believe -- we, the creditors'

committee, do not believe this is a mass tort asbestos-type

case where a Section 524(g) or a similar kind of trust will be

necessary in order to get to a confirmed plan of

reorganization. That was one of the committee's very specific

and initial concerns that we don't want to turn this -- I don't

want to minimize the damage and the disease caused by diacetyl,

but this is not going to overshadow, this is not going to be

the key driver, to the exit strategy for this Chemtura

bankruptcy case.


- 48 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

There were lots of suggestions in the pleadings filed

in opposition to the bar date that maybe we shouldn't have a

bar date at all. Maybe we should just use an estimation

procedure. The committee is not in favor of that suggestion.

So, Your Honor, from the committee's perspective, if

we adjourned -- not for the rest of the bar date, because I

think there are no objections with the other procedures, as

outlined in the bar date motion -- but if we adjourned as it

relates to the specific noticing and the geographic locations

where to send those notices, and adopting Your Honor's previous

suggestion of having a line in Spanish so that Spanish-only

speaking persons would have a resource to go to if they didn't

understand the balance of the notice, I think that's something

that the parties could work with.

But I think there has to be put a limited amount of

time on that process, and people know what that time process

is, so they can't say, we didn't have enough time. And with

that, Your Honor, I think we should be able to proceed.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. LABOVITZ: One very short statement, and I

apologize, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You realize that if you come up, I'm going

to have to do the same for Mr. Crick?

MS. LABOVITZ: I know. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Go ahead.


- 49 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MS. LABOVITZ: I just want to apprise the Court of the

practical mechanics of what we need to do next because of Mr.

Golden used the word "adjourn the hearing." So I wanted to

qualify what I had meant when I said that we could live with a

week.

Judge, what we would ask, if possible, is to have

approved today the noticing scheme that we lay out with the

addition of a sentence in the Spanish language for sites that

are identified diacetyl sites. And we would request that we

give -- I think this was the Court's suggestion -- we give the

other parties a week to provide us with a list of additional

sites. If we can agree to add all of those sites as noticing

that that's reasonable, then I think that's fantastic and I'm

hoping that we don't need to come back to court in a week's

time so that it's not a full adjournment.

But if there is a dispute, and I'll say now, Judge, I

don't think we want to add 3600 new sites to the noticing

scheme, then we would request that the Court -- and I'm sorry

for taxing your schedule, Judge -- but we would request that

the Court hear us in a week's time on that particular issue.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Crick, do you still want

to be heard?

MR. CRICK: Yes, sir. Regarding Spanish, one of my

clients, Arturo Lopez, we had to have an interpreter at his

deposition. His wife spoke no English. They're in Chicago.


- 50 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

And we would suggest that there not just be one sentence in an

English speaking newspaper about the Spanish language issue,

but a publication in a Spanish language newspaper of notice,

because in Chicago, there are a number of workers that do not

speak English that work in, for example, Flavors of North

America, Flavor Chem, and the Omar Packaging plants, that are

Spanish speakers. I don't have the experience in California.

I haven't had any cases.

With regard to the seven-day extension that you had

suggested, one thing I forgot to mention in my initial comments

is that in our discovery in one of our butter flavoring

lawsuits not involving Chemtura, we did ask one of our

defendants, who -- I apologize, Your Honor, I'm not allowed to

disclose it -- we asked them to identify all of their customers

to whom they sold the product that contained diacetyl. And

they gave us that answer.

Now, they stamped that answer "confidential and

proprietary" and I called their counsel up and I'm not allowed

at this moment to provide that information out. But I do have

information from one of the flavor companies that has this

information. I don't think I could get permission to disclose

that within the next seven days. We had asked that it be a

thirty-day time limit so that we could get that information

from that company as well as try to get participation from

Citrus and Ungerer and Chris Hansen.


- 51 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The only other comment that I wanted to make was with

regard to this 524(g) business. And I'm not a bankruptcy

lawyer so I'd have to defer to Mr. Reinsel, but the biggest

problem with the notice is requiring that people who don't have

claims -- don't have any diagnosis filed claims, it's because

they're not making any provision for people who go down the

road and develop a disease. So this is an extremely important

thing right now for people to have an opportunity to get a

diagnosis and to make a timely claim. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. We're going to take a recess.

I can't guarantee you how quickly I'll be back, but I would

like everybody back in the courtroom by 11:15. We're in

recess. Thank you.

(Recess from 10:59 a.m. until 11:49 a.m.)

THE COURT: Have seats, everybody. I apologize for

keeping you all waiting. I'm approving the noticing scheme

proposed by the debtors and endorsed by the creditors'

committee in this case which conforms to, though it improves on

the noticing scheme that's been utilized in this district in

other chemical cases with similar tort liability issues,

subject to the fine tuning that I'll articulate in a moment.

The following are the bases for the exercise of my

discretion in this regard. First, nobody disputes that it's

impossible to provide actual notice to every person who might,

in a perfect world, wish to file a proof of claim, and that the


- 52 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

standard as articulated in Mullane and its progeny is

reasonableness.

It was important to me that the debtors go beyond

notice to persons who had actually sued them or even to their

counsel and to go beyond generalized national publication.

That's why I welcomed their proposal to provide specific

supplemental notice geographically focused to areas where there

might be diacetyl claims and the debtors' efforts to make

disclosure in plain language of facts that would help

perspective claimants ascertain whether they might have a

claim.

If I had needed to, I might have expressly required

that but since the debtors were ahead of me in that regard,

there was no need or occasion for me to impose such a

requirement. I think the debtors did it very well on their

own.

Most of the objecting claimants, who, of course, do

have notice which is why they're here, with respect to their

objections when those objections are viewed objectively, the

objections represent alternative perspectives as to how the

debtors' Chapter 11 case should be run. And that's not a

satisfactory basis for objection on a motion of this character.

Their suggestion that even though this isn't an asbestos case

that the filing of this case wasn't asbestos or tort liability

driven and the debtors aren't seeking a channeling


- 53 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

injunction -- I should nevertheless require or expect the

debtors to craft a plan with a 524(g) injunction or other

claims channeling mechanism. It's inconsistent with the

concept of Section 1121 of the Code which gives the debtors the

exclusive right to propose a plan during the period authorized

by law, subject to the rights of parties in interest who oppose

extensions of the debtors' exclusive period or to seek the

termination of that right. At this juncture, the debtors are

free to propose a plan to meet their needs and concerns and the

concerns of what they believe will satisfy their unsecured

creditor community. And we'll just see how they do.

I'm also aware of no basis in law for requiring

strangers to a Chapter 11 case to provide information to assist

in the noticing process, particularly where those strangers to

the case are asked to provide information that might be used to

assert claims against them.

The debtors and the creditors' committee have reminded

me, though I hardly needed to be reminded, of the importance of

keeping this case on the time track that's so important here,

particularly in light of the expense to debtors and, by

extension, their unsecured creditors. That's unfortunately a

fact of life in dealing with secured lenders when extensions to

a timetable are sought assuming that such extensions can be

obtained at all. The needs of this case don't permit the

luxury of deferring the establishment of a bar date or the


- 54 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

sending of notice to creditors for the leisurely period the

objectors advocate.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'll say that I considered

and rejected the objectors' argument that requiring proofs of

claim by people who consulted counsel with respect to

prospective claims but who didn't yet sue is unfair or

unlawful. Even if that might be used by others whom those

claimants might sue as an indication that the statute of

limitations began to run against those people, since there

would likely be a year, if not considerably longer, to bring

suit against those others if such were deemed to be warranted,

I can't regard that as material prejudice. But even if it

were, the diacetyl litigants have to understand that this case,

with billions of dollars of debt to be satisfied, can't be run

for their convenience or strategic preferences.

And I'm puzzled by the notion that the objectors

advocate, though they may have dropped this point by the time

of oral argument, that no bar date should be set at all. I

don't need to decide today whether a bar date is mandatory in

all Chapter 11 cases, though I must say that in more than

thirty-five years of practice in bankruptcy cases as a lawyer

and then a judge, I've never seen a Chapter XI or Chapter 11

case without one. I need simply find, and I do find, as a

factor, mixed question of fact and law, that a bar date is

necessary and appropriate here. The debtors and their major


- 55 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

creditor constituencies -- and by that I mean at the least the

creditors' committee -- need to know the universe of potential

claims that must be satisfied. Frankly, to suggest otherwise

is ludicrous. I don't know how anyone with the slightest

knowledge of Chapter 11 practice could think or suggest

otherwise.

Finally, I agree, of course, that under the Rules

Enabling Act, a bankruptcy rule can't trump a statute. But the

Code implies, if it does not also expressly require, creditors

to file proofs of claim unless the need for such has been

obviated by the debtors' scheduling of its debt, or where it's

meaningless, as where we have a no-asset case.

The legislative history notes to Section 501 Code

provide that the rules of bankruptcy procedure and practice

under the law will guide creditors as to when filing is

necessary and when it may be dispensed with. In general,

however, unless a claim is listed in a Chapter 9 or a Chapter

11 case and allowed as a result of the list, a proof of claim

will be a prerequisite to allowance for unsecured claims,

including priority claims and the unsecured portion of a claim

asserted by the holder of a lien.

I will, however, require the following revisions to

the noticing scheme. The debtors are to add to the notice a

sentence in Spanish that advises Spanish-speaking recipients of

a phone number or address by which they can be provided with a


- 56 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

translation of the notice into Spanish.

The debtors are also to accommodate reasonable

suggestions for the addition of particular sentences or clauses

into the notice that might be suggested by the objectors so

long as such suggestions are provided within one week. And the

debtors are also to add to the list of recipients any

additional recipients whose names and addresses are provided by

the objectors, so long as the requests to add those recipients

are reasonable and they're also provided within a week.

I don't today decide whether expanding the universe of

recipients from thirty to forty, ballpark, up to 3600 is

reasonable, though I must say that the need for expanding the

list by so many when such a smaller number has sued to date,

strikes me as a situation where we'd have to make a cost

benefit analysis to determine whether it's worth it. If the

cost of adding 3600 recipients is modest, it might be a good

idea but if it's a material burden, I'm not so sure.

I'm approving the debtors' motion in concept and

ruling on the specific issues I just discussed. If you can't

agree on implementation of the objectors' language suggestions

or upon the noticed recipients to be added to the list, I'll

resolve the issues from my vacation by conference call.

But I want to emphasize that this notice process is to

remain on the time table that I've determined to be critical,

and once more that this multi-billion dollar case simply can't


- 57 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

be run for the convenience or preferences of the diacetyl

claimants.

The debtors are to provide me with an order settled on

no more than two business days notice in accordance with the

foregoing. And with that we're adjourned. Have a good day.

MS. LABOVITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. GOLDEN: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Whereupon these proceedings were concluded at 12:00 p.m.)


- 58 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I N D E X

R U L I N G S

DESCRIPTION PAGE LINE

Debtors' motion to reject three leases granted 8 1

Debtors' motion to approve settlement of civil 8 14

action related to certain antitrust claims granted

Motion of Tricor Refining for relief from 9 16

the automatic stay granted

Noticing scheme proposed by the debtors and 51 15

endorsed by the creditors' committee approved

subject to revisions to be made as stated on the

record


- 59 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I, Lisa Bar-Leib, certify that the foregoing transcript is a

true and accurate record of the proceedings.

___________________________________

LISA BAR-LEIB (CET**D-486)

AAERT Electronic Certified Transcriber

Also transcribed by: Penina Wolicki

Sharona Shapiro (CET**D-492)

Veritext LLC

200 Old Country Road

Suite 580

Mineola, New York 11501

Date: August 17, 2009


Exhibit D

Diacetyl Site-Specific Notice Relating to Firmenich Facility


SPECIAL NOTICE TO RESIDENTS OF THE EAST BRUNSWICK,

PLAINSBORO, DAYTON, MT. OLIVE & LINCOLN PARK AREAS

As explained in the legal notice above, the Bankruptcy Court has set a deadline for submitting

claims against the Debtors. From 1998 to 2005 Chemtura Corporation sold diacetyl to food

flavoring companies throughout the United States. Among other things, diacetyl was used by

these food flavoring companies to make butter flavoring. If you have any claim against

Chemtura Corporation related to exposure to diacetyl, acetoin and/or acetaldehyde that was

supplied, sold or distributed by Chemtura Corporation directly or indirectly to:

Degussa Corporation, located at Farm Circle Rd., East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816;

Firmenich, located at 250 Plainsboro Rd., Plainsboro, New Jersey 08536;

International Flavors & Frangrances, Inc., located at 150 Docks Corner Rd., Dayton, New

Jersey 08810;

BASF Corporation, located at 3000 Continental Dr., Mt. Olive, New Jersey 07828; or

Ungerer & Co., located at 4 Bridgewater Ln., Lincoln Park, New Jersey 07035,

you MUST file a proof of claim form according to the instructions in the legal notice above by

October 30, 2009 at 5:00 (PDT), or you will forever lose your rights to recover on your claim

in the future.

If you or your spouse or immediate family member was exposed to diacetyl, acetoin and/or acetaldehyde, and if

that exposure directly or indirectly caused injury that becomes apparent either now or in the future, you may

have a claim under various legal theories for damages. Among other things, personal injury damages could

relate to physical, emotional or other personal injuries, such as personal or bodily injury, wrongful death, loss of

consortium, medical monitoring, survivorship or proximate, consequential, general and special damages or

punitive damages. More information about the type of “claims” that must be filed before the deadline is

included in paragraph 5 of the legal notice above.

To preserve your claim against the Debtors relating to exposure to diacetyl, acetoin and/or acetaldehyde, you

MUST file a proof of claim form before October 30, 2009 at 5:00 (PDT). If you do not file a proof of claim

form, you will forever lose your right to bring any claim against the Debtors in the future. Filing a proof of

claim form does not automatically entitle you to compensation.

For more information about the filing process and/or to receive a proof of claim form, please call

1-866-381-9100 or visit www.kccllc.net/chemtura. Si usted tiene alguna conexión al uso o la mezcla de la

condimentación de mantequilla en las plantas localizadas en las direcciónes enumeradas aquí, sus derechos

legales pueden ser afectados por este aviso. Para obtener este aviso en Español, por favor llame (866) 967-0261

o visite www.kccllc.net/chemtura.


~TEDSTATESBANKRUPTCYCOURT


CHEMTURA CORPORATION, et al.,l

Debtors.

In re:)) Chapter 11)) Case No. 09-11233 (REG))) Jointly Administered

---------------)

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION OF ROSEMARY DAVIESIN THE HOME NEWS TRIBUNE

The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor's federal taxpayer-identification number,. are: ChemturaCorporation (3153); A&M Cleaning Products, LLC (4712); Aqua Clear Industries, LLC (1394); ASCK, Inc. (4489); ASEPSIS, Inc. (6270); BioLabCompany Store, LLC (0131); BioLab Franchise Company, LLC (6709); Bio-Lab, Inc. (8754); BioLab Textile Additives, LLC (4348); CNKChemical Realty Corporation (5340); Crompton Colors Incorporated (3341); Crompton Holding Corporation (3342); Crompton Monochem, Inc.(3574); GLCC Laurel, LLC (5687); Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (5035); Great Lakes Chemical Global, Inc. (4486); GT Seed Treatment, Inc.(5292); HomeCare Labs, Inc. (5038); ISCI, Inc. (7696); Kern Manufacturing Corporation (0603); Laurel Industries Holdings, Inc. (3635);Monochem, Inc. (5612); Naugatuck Treatment Company (2035); Recreational Water Products, Inc. (8754); Uniroyal Chemical Company Limited(Delaware) (9910); Weber City Road LLC (4381); and WRL of Indiana, Inc. (9136).


Affidavit of Publication

State of New Jersey} SS.MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Personally appeared Rosemary Davies

of the Home News Tribune, a newspaper printed in Freehold, NJ and published in NEPTUNE, in saidCounty and State, and of general circulation of said county, who being duly sworn, deposeth and saiththat the advertisement of which the annexed is a true copy, has been published in the said newspaperone (1) time times, once in each issue, as follows

8-Sep--09

~'2 A.D., 2009.. j::'~"

0" ...., , ~~

.CA~ER(NE:M"WlLLrAMS "'NotA~rP'U~.,U(t!:>F NEW JERSEY. l ~ o~ ub cnbed before~~JUNE.,.... . /8tll/ day of September

'M9Jz 7?ztt4mtriNotary Public of New Jersey


No redemption for this 'Bad Lieutenant'

kind of landscape where Iwas going to ley to look atthe landscape of somethingthat happened to me 20years ago and try to recallthat In my sober mind,"

For Cage, one clear underly1ng difference between his bad Heutenantand Keitel's Is the latter'ssearch for redemption,Cagesald.

''The movie (Abel) made,which is excellent, but it isvery much a Judeo-Chr1st1an program where thecharacter 18 loaded withCathol1c gullt and redempUon. Terrence has no guilt.It Is not about that," Cagesald "I did not choose toapproach the ffim with theIdea J was portraying eviltn anyv,:ay. You can ask meif he is a good cop, a badcop, Y won't answer. Hejust is."

In one of the best l1nes ofthe Olm, Olled with blackhumor, Cage tells a drugkingpin who has just shota hit man comlng to settlea score with Cage's lieutenant "Shoot him again. Hissoul Is still dancing."Cajun music exults as the"soul" breakdances.

"It is a very darkhumor," Herzog said. "It 18so dark it becomes hilarious,"

Her.zog acknowledgesthe fUm was initially set 1nNew Orleans for the taxbreaks, but said he 1mJnedtately jumped at thechance.

"Nev.' Orleans has something very, very strange.You sense the collapse, butnot just the physlcal collapse, also the collapse ofclvllUy," Her.zog said. ''Weshot at one street intersecUon and the next nlght twopeople were shot at this IntersecUon. So you alwayshad the thought, yes, thereare always dangers."

TUESDAY. SEPTI:MBER 8. 2009

APPHOTO

Nicolas Cage and Eva Mendes arrive with German dl~

rector Werner Herzog, center, tor the photo call for""Bad Ueutenant : Port of Call New Orleans" at the66th edition of the VenIce Rim Festival sept. 4 InVenice, Italy.

ENTERTAINMENT

ByCO~BARRYTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS

G erman directorWerner Her.zog says

his "Bad Lieutenant: Portof Call New Orleans," starring NIcolas Cage as adrug·addlcted homtclde detective and Eva Mendes ashis prostitute gtrlfrlend,has nothing to do withAbel Ferrara's 1992 cultclassic starring HarveyKeitel. He hasn't even seenIt.

"There 15 no relalloDshlp, because I never sawIt. But I am convincinglytold that they have nothingto do with each other,"Herzog told reporters onFriday at the Venice F1lm.Festival where the moviemade Its premiere.

"Y hope that Abel Ferrara will see my Olm,which he has not seen.And I hope I will see hisfUm soon. I am sure wewill meet soon with a oot-

tie of whiskey between us."That could happen

sooner than he thinks: Ferrara 18 showlng a Olm "Na·poll, NapoH, Napolf' out ofcompetition In Venice.

A brutal murder of afamily of illegal Immi·grants drives Herzog's"Bad Lieutenant," but the======== movie de(les any conven·tional plot Hne. It's morethan a murder story, anddoesn't want to be an expose of corrupllon. Herzogsaid the title came wlth theproject, and he couldn'tchange U, but that he didrewrite substantial parts ofthe screenplay.

"To me U's a fatry tale, awarped fairy tale, but afairy tale," Mendes said.

Cage's Iguana-hallucinating homlclde detective Lt.

i'i!~:E~~~~§:1 Terence McDonagh walks~ seemingly unscathed

through potential disastersof h18 own making, alwaystempting fate to catch him.He 15 addicted to pa1nklllers to treat a chronic backInjury plcked up whlle rescuing a prisoner from therising waters of HurricaneKatrina, and will do anything to get h18 fix; shakedown colleagues workingIn the property room,youths coming out of clubsand a college football starwhose stats he can recite.

Playing a drug haze wasmuch a much different process for Cage than when heplayed an alcohol1c In"LeaVing Las Vegas." Forthat rom "I would have acouple of drinks for theprescrIbed scene, see howit would feel and put It inthe movle," he said.

"I hadn't had a drink forfive years, or anything,"when it came t1me to shoot"Bad L1eutenant," Cagesald. "It occurred to methat th18 was going to bemore of an impressionist

We don't just talk a good game. We prove it.The Financial Resources Commercial Lending Group.

We're here and ready to help you understand all of your business loan options and detennine which of the many solutions we offer, Willwork best for you. We're proud to have helped many small businesses get to where they want to go. Here's just a small sample of someof the recent companies we've been happy to help:

~01,2S0

Hamiltoll Tuwnship, NJCommercial Reall!"".srate

$133,000Holland, PA

Im'eslmenl ProPI..'rty FintJllcing

$300,000Leballon, NJ

Commercia! Real E.1tate

$180,000Le"port.PA

Inveslment Property Financing

FInd out how we can help yotr business today.cal: Jeff SChneider at M8AZ9.6!i07 ... Junemarie Platt at _.253.6456

800.933.3280www.MyFinanciaiResources.org


Exhibit E

Reorganized Debtors’ April 3, 2012 Letter







Exhibit F

HFM’s May 31, 2012 Letter




Exhibit G

Reorganized Debtors’ June 4, 2012 Letter





Date post:	24-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Chemtura - Discharge Injunction Motion Firmenich Facility ...Hearing Date: August 22, 2012 at 9:45...

Documents