Document xzqm4999B3eeoXpDz5890M89J

FILE NAME Cape Asbestos CAPE DATE 1978 Mar 6 DOC CAPE162 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Letter to Group Solicitor Cape Industries RE CapeFuture Commercial Activities in the US Legal - Tibbs Case Exhibit 60 ELECTRONICALLY ELECTRONICAL Y ELECTRONICALLY ELECTRONICALLY ELECTRONICAL Y ELECTRONICALY ELECTRONICAL Y ELECTRONICALLY ELECTRONICALLY ELECTRONICALLY ELECTRONICALLY FILED FILED FILED FILED 2023 2023 2023 2023 March 6 1978 Oct Oct 18 12:13 12:13 PM PM A. J. Penna Esq RICHLAND RICHLAND Group Solicitor RICHLAND RICHLAND Cape Industries Limited RICHLAND 114 Park Street RICHLAND RICHLAND London W1Y 4AB England COMMON COMMON RE Cape - Future Commercial Activities COMMON in the U.S.A. COMMON COMMON COMMON PLEAS Dear Tony PLEAS PLEAS PLEAS Thank you for your letter of February 24th which Max PLEAS and I have reviewed carefully Many of the questions that CASE you raise have been discussed previously in connection with CASE CASE the NAAC operation It is our opinion that if Don International CASE # and Cape Contracts International Ltd. operate as wholly autonomous 2023CP4001759 2023CP4001759 subsidiaries then any assets that such subsidiaries might have 22002233CCPP44000011775599 in the United States would not be subject to attachment to sat- 2023CP4001759 2023CP4001759 isfy any asbestosis default judgment obtained against Cape 2023CP4001759 2023CP4001759 However if Don International is incorporated in the United 2023CP40 1759 States and is wholly owned by the Cape any dividends declared 2023CP4001759 2023CP4001759 might be subject to attachment by a judgment creditor of the 2023CP4001759 Cape If Cape should exercise direct control over the activities of either of these subsidiaries in the United States Cape would be faced with the same contentions that were made in the Tyler cases with respect to the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil The judgment creditor would have the burden of such domination by the Cape and that the subsidiaries showing of Cape selling or contracting in the United States are merely branches or divisions of Cape rather than independent subsidiaries The CAPE000550 E ECTRONIALY A. J. Penna Esq March 6 1978 Page Two FILED - 2023 Oct greater autonomy in the operation of the subsidiaries the less 18 12:13 chance of the there would be of any subsidiary to satisfy successful attachment any default judgments of the assets against Cape PM We agree that it is most unlikely that any plaintiff - would bother to pursue collection of any default judgments against Cape in any of the current asbestosis cases pending RICHLAND in the United States It has been the practice of practically every plaintiff to join as many defendants as possible most of whom are substantial corporations such as Manville - and most of whom are adequately insured There is of course the risk that some of the defendants who may have been customers COM ON of any of the Cape subsidiaries would endeavor to obtain nification and contribution from the Cape on the same indem- grounds asserted in the Tyler litigation PLEAS The only cases that we are aware of where the Cape and PLEAS EGNEP have been named as defendants are the two Illinois cases - pending in the United States District Court District of Illinois involving employees of fo the Northern the Manville Sales Corporation Waukegan plant As I advised you in our recent telephone conversation we withdrew from that litigation as ee a attorneys for Cassiar when it appeared that under a most recent te decision of the Illinois Supreme tion among tortfeasor defendants Court based a doctrine of contribu- on relative fault might VM be available to Cassiar However a recent modification of that 203CP41759 Ble decision by our Supreme Court now makes such a doctrine avail- able only prospectively to occurrences after March 1 1978 and Dake accordingly such relief will not be available to Cassiar against wo the Cape However there is still the possibility that Johns- Le Manville as a customer of Cape and EGNEP might seek indem- eae nity on the theory of passive negligence claim is filed against Cape and EGNEP asserting and if such a a counterclaim RD for relief and a steps to enforce default is permitted that judgment against Manville might the assets of Cape take We a doubt that the plaintiffs in these two cases would seek to take ae dene an early default judgment against Cape and lief would not be available to Manville EGNEP until and such rea final money 2 at tend Mca etd Se Liha CAPE000SSICAPE0 SI RT