Exhibit (99)
                                                                   ------------

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
EZELL THOMAS, ET AL. (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)                        PLAINTIFFS
AND
OWENS-CORNING (AS TO TOBACCO DEFENDANTS ONLY)
V.                                                  CIVIL ACTION NO.: 96-0065
                                                                     --------
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, ET AL.                      TOBACCO DEFENDANTS
AND
AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. ET AL.                              ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS

                   SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
                   ------------------------------------------

          Following a hearing  conducted  before the Special Master  Pursuant to
     Rule 53 (MRCP),  the undersigned  submits this Report and Recommendation as
     to the  disposition of Defendants'  Motion for Summary  Judgment Based Upon
     Improper Aggregation:

          In determining  whether Summary  Judgment is appropriate,  Mississippi
     Rule of  Civil  Procedure  56 (c)  requires  the  Movant  to  show  "...the
     pleadings,  depositions, and answers to interrogatories,  and admissions on
     file . .  .{establish}  that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
     that the  moving  party  is  entitled  to  Judgment  as a  matter  of law."
     Additionally,  this  Court  is  required  to  view  the ".  . .  pleadings,
     depositions,  answers to  interrogatories  and admissions on file . . ." in
     the light most favorable to Owens Corning.

          The issue before the Court is whether the "direct injury"  requirement
     imposed by the remoteness  doctrine bars Owens Corning's  causes of action.
     As this Court is aware,  Owens  Corning  seeks to recover  from the Tobacco
     Defendants  damages  that it  sustained  as a  result  of  several  hundred


<PAGE>


     thousand claims asserted against Owens Corning by individual  claimants who
     allegedly suffered asbestos related disease. The essence of Owens Corning's
     causes  of  action is that with  regard  to the  several  hundred  thousand
     claimants  to whom Owens  Corning has paid money,  the injuries and damages
     sustained by those  claimants for which Owens Corning paid money,  were, in
     fact, caused in whole or in part by the Tobacco Defendants. Owens Corning's
     causes of action  asserted  against  the  Defendants  include  restitution,
     violation of Mississippi's Antitrust Statute and fraud.

          The Defendants',  through their Motion for Summary Judgment based upon
     improper aggregation, argue that since Owens Corning's causes of action are
     necessarily   derivative  of  Owens  Corning's  liabilities  to  individual
     asbestos claimants, Owens Corning's claim against the Tobacco Defendants is
     barred  pursuant  to  the  "direct  injury"   requirement  imposed  by  the
     remoteness doctrine.

          Owens Corning  responds to the Motion for Summary Judgment by arguing,
     inter  alia,  that  Owens  Corning  is not  standing  in the  shoes  of the
     underlying asbestos  claimants,  but rather Owens Corning has its own claim
     against the Tobacco Defendants for damages it has sustained.  Specifically,
     Owens Corning argues that the Tobacco Defendants willfully and fraudulently
     recognized  internally the harmful nature of tobacco  products,  as well as
     the  increased  harmful  effect of smoking  in  conjunction  with  asbestos
     exposure;  however,  notwithstanding this knowledge,  Owens Corning asserts
     that the Tobacco Defendants fraudulently concealed this knowledge and

<PAGE>


     attempted to shift  tobacco's  liability to Owens  Corning.  Owens  Corning
     argues that it has its own claim  against the  Tobacco  Defendants  for the
     Defendants' intentional misconduct directed at Owens Corning. Owens Corning
     therefore  concludes  that it  suffered  a  "direct  injury"  caused by the
     Tobacco Defendants as opposed to an "indirect injury."

          Notwithstanding  Owens  Corning's  argument that it suffered a "direct
     injury" arising out of Tobacco Defendants'  misconduct,  Owens Corning also
     argues  that  even if  this  Court  were to  conclude  that  Owens  Corning
     sustained an indirect  injury;  Owens Corning argues that  Mississippi  law
     permits a Plaintiff to assert and prevail on a claim for an indirect injury
     through the causes of action of restitution, state antitrust and fraud.

          After carefully  reviewing all of the information,  arguments and case
     law submitted by the parties,  the  undersigned  would  recommend that this
     Court find that Owens Corning sustained an indirect injury. The undersigned
     would further  recommend that this Court find that under  Mississippi  law,
     and the  prevailing  law in virtually all  jurisdictions,  Owens Corning is
     prohibited  by the  remoteness  doctrine from  recovering  from the Tobacco
     Defendants for an "indirect injury" sustained by Owens Corning.

          The undersigned  would  therefore  recommend that this Court enter its
     Order  finding  that  the  "direct  injury"   requirement  imposed  by  the
     remoteness  doctrine bars Owens Corning's  causes of action of restitution,
     fraud and state antitrust.

          This Court  should  enter its Order  pursuant to  Mississippi  Rule of
     Civil  Procedure  56(c)  finding  that the ". . .  pleadings,  depositions,
     answers to interrogatories and admissions on file . . ." show that there is
     no genuine  issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
     Judgment  as a matter of law.  Therefore,  Defendants'  Motion for  Summary
     Judgment  Based on Improper  Aggregation  should be  granted.

          RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this the 9th day of May, 2001.



                                                /s/  ROBERT W. SNEED
                                                -------------------------------
                                                ROBERT W. SNEED, SPECIAL MASTER