Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/368-f-3d-289-597341690
Timestamp: 2020-03-28 09:24:36
Document Index: 156309669

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 455', '§ 455', '§ 455', '§ 455', '§ 455', '§ 455', '§ 455']

368 F.3d 289 (3rd Cir. 2004), 03-4212, In re Kensington Intern. Ltd. - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 597341690
Docket Nº: 03-4212
Citation: 368 F.3d 289
Party Name: In re Kensington Intern. Ltd.
368 F.3d 289 (3rd Cir. 2004)
Nos. 03-4212, 03-4526, 04-1468.
The Petitions, which were brought by creditors of Owens Coming and W.R. Grace & Co., alleged that Judge Wolin had, through his association with certain consulting Advisors which he had appointed, created a perception that his impartiality "might reasonably be questioned" under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The Petitions asserted that disqualification was also warranted under 28 U.S.C.§ 455(b)(1) as a result of ex parte communications among Judge Wolin and his advisors, the parties, and the attorneys. 1
On remand, Judge Wolin and the parties faithfully followed our instructions. Under stringent time restrictions and Judge Wolin's effective oversight, the parties conducted extensive discovery into the facts surrounding the recusal motions. Following
an additional round of briefing, Judge Wolin issued a comprehensive written opinion and order on February 2, 2004 denying the recusal motions both on the merits and on timeliness grounds. See generally In re Owens Corning, 305 B.R. 175 (D.Del.2004).
First, a reasonable person, knowing all of the relevant circumstances, would conclude that Judge Wolin's impartiality might reasonably be questioned in the Owens Corning, W.R. Grace & Co. and USG Corp. bankruptcies. Although the record does not demonstrate that Judge Wolin has done anything wrong or unethical or biased, he must be disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) from further presiding over those three bankruptcies. See Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 162 (3d Cir.1993) ("For purposes of § 455(a) disqualification, it does not matter whether the district court judge actually harbors any bias against a party or the party's counsel."). We emphasize that our review of the record has not revealed the slightest hint of any actual bias or partisanship by Judge Wolin. On the contrary, Judge Wolin has throughout his stewardship over the Five Asbestos Cases exhibited all of the judicial qualities, ethical conduct, and characteristics emblematic of the most experienced, competent, and distinguished Article III jurists. But the test for disqualification under § 455(a) is not actual bias; it is theperception of bias. See id.
Second, we find that the motions for recusal in the Owens Corning and W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcies were timely under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). In reaching that conclusion, we disagree with Judge Wolin that it was appropriate, in this case, to impute knowledge of the grounds for disqualification to the Petitioners. The evil that a timeliness requirement is intended to prevent-namely, holding in reserve a recusal demand until such time that a party perceives a strategic advantage-is served by requiring actual knowledge. Because the Petitioners did not themselves learn about the Advisors' conflict of interest (discussed infra ) until shortly before they moved for disqualification, their motions were timely.
Third, USG Corp. stands on a different footing. The record discloses that the USG debtors and Unsecured Creditors Committee knew as early as January 2002 about the Advisors' conflict. However, other factors come into play as to USG Corp. (which we discuss infra ) requiring Judge Wolin's disqualification.
Fourth, we do not decide whether the ex parte communications between Judge Wolin, on the one hand, and the Advisors, parties, and attorneys, on the other, provide a separate ground for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Nor do we decide whether those motions are timely. We feel constrained, however, to note that we look with disfavor upon both the extent to which, and manner in which, Judge Wolin engaged in ex parte communications. Whatever value the ex parte meetings may have had in moving the Five Asbestos Cases along or creating a settlement-friendly atmosphere was outweighed
by the attendant risks and problems, which are catalogued...