2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-6-2004 

# I n Re: G -I H oldin gs P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-1546

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" I n Re: G -I H o ld in gs " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 98. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/98NON-P RECEDE NTI AL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No
. 04-1546

IN RE: GI HOLDI NGS, I NC. f/ k/ a GAF CORPORA TI ON, DEBTOR. OFFICI AL COMM ITTEE OF ASBESTOS CLAIMANTS , Appellant
v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Distri ct of New Jersey (D .C. N o. 03-CV-04275 ) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Willi am G. Bassler

Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

November 3, 2004 Bef ore: ALITO , BARRY , and FUENTES , Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed: December 6, 2004)1 W e ex ercis e ple nar y revie w o ver wh ethe r a cla im is ripe for jud icial r evie w. See

Do e v. C oun ty of Ce ntre, Pe nnsylva nia , 242 F.3d 437, 452 (3d Cir. 200 1).

2 We have considered BNY’s arguments that we l ack appell ate j urisdi ction ove r the Distri ct Court’ s order a nd find the m unpersuasi ve. Jurisdi ction l ies for this appeal OPINI ON OF THE COURT

FUENTES , Circuit

Judge
. This app eal grow s out of a p reliminary injunction issued b y the Bankru ptcy Court for the Dis tri ct of New Jerseyin favor of Bui lding Materials Corporati on of America (“BMCA ”), a s ubsidi ary of the debt or G-I Holdings , Inc. The injunction barred the fi ling or prosec ution of a sbestos clai ms against BM CA and further preve nted BMCA from refinancing its credit agreement with the Bank of N ew Y ork (“BNY ”) without first pro vid ing not ice to the O ffic ial C om mitte e of As bes tos C laim ants (the “C om mitte e”). Af ter BM CA in fac t gave notice of a p ropo sed re finan cing, th e Co mm ittee sou ght to modify t he preli minaryinjunct

ion by placi ng certain res tri ctions on the propos ed refina ncing, includi ng a condition prevent ing BNY from acquiring new defenses that could be ass erted a gainst the Committe e in the future. The BankruptcyCourt denie d the Committee’s request , and the District Court affirmed t

hat deni al on the grounds of ripe nes s. We affirm subst antia lly for the reasons expr essed i n the thorough and persuas ive opin ion o f the D istrict Co urt. 1 We add the foll owing to unders core our own agreement with that decisi on. 2pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)( 1) because t he District Court ’s order refused, on the grounds of ripeness, to modifyor diss olve a pre limi nary injunct ion. The cas es cited by BN Y in sup por t of it s co nten tion , In re Kassover , 343 F.3d 91 ( 2d Cir. 2003) , and Conroe Of fice B ldg., Ltd . v. Nic hols , 21 F .3d 69 0 (5th Cir. 19 94), are simp ly not relev ant to th is matter as theydid not i nvolve the denial of a request to modifyan injunc tion on ju stic iabi li tygr oun ds. Because we fi nd that ju ri sdi ct io n ex is ts pur suantto 28 U. S. C. § 12 92( a) (1 ), we ne ed n otdec id e whe th erju ri sdi ct io n al so e xi st s un der 28 U. S. C. § 158(d ). First, as a n initial m atter, the C om mittee’ s sug gestion that the justiciab ility requir ement of ri peness i s not re levant or otherwise les s import ant in a proceedi ng involvi ng modification of a pre limi nary injunct ion is incorrect. Although it is t rue that inju nctiv e reli ef is inten ded to af fec t futu re co ndu ct an d gu ard aga inst f utu re injury, a federalcourt must

sti ll ens ure that

the jus tici abili ty requirements of Arti cle II I, i ncluding ripe nes s, are satis fied reg ard less o f the type o f rel ief s oug ht. See Nextel Communicati ons of M id-A tlantic, Inc . v. City of M argate , 305 F .3d 18 8, 192 (3d C ir. 2002 ); Armstrong Worl d I ndu s. , I nc. v. Adams , 961 F.2 d 40 5, 41 0 (3 d C ir. 19 92)
. Second, we are unper suaded by the Committe e’s ar gument that the acqui sition of possibl e new defenses byBNY as a res ult of t he refi nancing cr eates a substant ial controver sy be tween the two parties “of suffic ient i mmediacy and reali ty ” to satisfy ripe nes s co nce rns. See Peac hlum v. City of Yo rk, Pe nnsylva nia , 333 F.3d 429, 434 (3d Cir . 200 3) (in tern al cita tion and quo tatio n om itted ). As the District Court noted, whether th e Co mmi ttee maybr in g a cl ai m ag ai ns t B NY, an d the re byim pl ic at e a nyde fe ns es BNY may ac quire a s a resu lt of the refina ncing , depe nds o n the o ccurre nce o f sev eral un certain and conti ngent intervening e vents. This chai n of hypot hetic als pr esents a controve rsytoo3 The Comm ittee’s r eliance on In re I nt’lPower Sec. Corp. , 170 F.2d 399 (3d Cir.

1948), and Breswick & Co. v. Briggs , 135 F. S upp . 397 (S.D .N.Y . 195 5), is m ispla ced
. The issue in this cas e is no t wh ether in junctiv e relief m ay be gra nted to prev ent a p arty from asserting a de fense in pe nding li tigat ion or t o preserve asset s pending r esolution of an ownership dispute. We are faced instead with a threshold issue (ri peness) which must be r eso lved eve n be for e rea chin g su ch q ues tion s. re mot e f orju di ci al re vi ew. M oreo ver, ou r con clusion does not ch ange base d on the C om mittee’ s attem pt to recharacterize i ts request as merelyseeking to preserve the stat us quo, and not as a request for a prematu re adjudication o f the me rits of defense s that BN Y m ay acquire through t he refi nancing. As the District Court noted, the Committe e cannot cl aim that the injury i t seeks to avoid i s the mere a cquisi tion of de fenses byBNY , as oppos ed to the prospect of BNY ’s future use of such defenses. 3 In any event, to the e xtent t hat the Committee ar gues that

it would be i nequitable to pe rmit BNY to acquir e new defenses as a resul t of the refina ncing, we note that it would be at lea st as i nequitable to s tri p BNY of poss ible de fens es w ithout c onsid ering th eir valid ity in the first ins tance , a ma tter wh ich is not y et ri pe. Finall y, contrary t o the Committe e’s spec ulati on that t he str ategi c balance maybe altered by the ref inanc ing, w e do n ot see h ow the C om mittee h as be en “g enuin ely agg riev ed” at thi s po int. See Peachlum , 333 F.3d at 433-34. As the District Court noted, any potenti al harm to the Comm ittee can onlyoccur if and when B NY actuallyasserts a
new defe nse in a suit by the Co mm ittee. Th e pos sibility that suc h a de fens e ma y actually4 To the e xtent that the Co mm ittee relies on a decision o f the Ba nkruptcy Co urt

issued a fter t

he District Court

decisi on on appeal her e, we do not consi der it as the Ba nkr upt cy Co urt’s dec ision is no t par t of th e rec ord on a ppe al. be asserted ag ainst the Co mm ittee, howev er, is neither immine nt nor certain to oc cur. 4 We have considered a ll of t he arguments a dvanced by the Appell ant and concl ude that t hey are without merit. Accordingly , the judgment of t he dist rict court wil l be affirmed.