
    In re A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Debtor. (Eight Cases.) Rosemary MENARD-SANFORD; Karen Valenzuela; Constance Miller Engelsberg; Nancy Lauri Adams; Carolyn Harris, Claimants-Appellants, v. Ralph R. MABEY; The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Donna OBERG, et al., Claimants-Appellants, v. The OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Albert L. SIVLEY, Claimant-Appellant, v. The OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Diana BROSCO; Catherine Crawford; Mary Fischer, et al., Claimants-Appellants, v. The OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Lynn SCOTT; Carol Lopez, et al., Claimants-Appellants, v. The OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Elaine CUMLEY; Laura Jones; Jean Abad, et al., Claimants-Appellants, v. The OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Alexia ANDERSON, et al., Claimant-Appellant, v. Stanley K. JOYNES, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; The Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated; Ralph R. Mabey, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee. Alexia ANDERSON, et al., Claimant-Appellant, v. The OFFICIAL UNSECURED CREDITORS COMMITTEE OF A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED; The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; Ralph R. Mabey; Stanley K. Joynes, III, Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants of A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Parties-in-interest, A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee.
    Nos. 88-1750, 88-1754, 88-1756, 88-1758 to 88-1760, 88-1763 and 88-3602.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Argued Dec. 6, 1988.
    Decided June 16, 1989.
    Alan B. Morrison (Linda Donaldson, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C., on brief), for claimants-appellants.
    James Crawford Roberts (James S. Crockett, Jr., Mays & Valentine, Richmond, Va., Dennis- J. Drebsky, Alesia Ranney-Marinelli, Kirk C. Loos, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City, Ralph D. Pittle, Medical Legal Consultants of Washington, Seattle, Wash., John T. Baker, Bragg & Dubofsky, Denver, Colo., Joseph McDowell, Ill, Cullity, Kelley & McDowell, Manchester, N.H., W. Bradley Post, Post, Syrios & Bradshaw, Wichita, •Kan., Frederic A. Bremseth, Doshan, Lord & Bremseth, Wayzata, Minn., Murray Drabkin, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Washington, D.C., Harold S. Novikoff, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York City, Henri E. Norris, Stanley K. Joynes, III, Rilee, Cantor, Arkema & Edmonds, Richmond, Va., Robert M. Miller, Berlack, Israels & Liberman, New York City, John S. Kinzey, Jr., Steven J. McCardell, Le-boeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MaCrae, Salt Lake City, Utah, on brief), for debtor-appellee.
    Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
   WIDENER, Circuit Judge:

On July 26, 1988, the bankruptcy court and the district court jointly confirmed the “Sixth Amended and Restated Plan of Reorganization” (the Plan) submitted by A.H. Robins Company, Inc. (Robins). In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 88 B.R. 742 (E.D.Va. 1988). Rosemary Menard-Sanford and certain other personal injury claimants, who voted against the Plan, appeal. -They challenge the district court’s approval of the disclosure statement, the district court’s use of a one claimant one vote voting procedure, the district court’s feasibility finding, and a certain injunction found in the Plan. We affirm.

On August 21, 1985, Robins filed a petition for reorganization relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. For an explanation of the details surrounding Robins’ bankruptcy and some of the resulting litigation, see the district court’s opinion in In Re A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 88 B.R. 742 (E.D.Va.1988), and our other published opinions regarding this bankruptcy.

On April 1, 1988, the district court approved the “Sixth Amended and Restated Disclosure Statement”. The appellants argue that the disclosure statement does not contain adequate information. 11 U.S.C. § 1125(b) requires that before solicitation of approval or disagreement of a plan of reorganization the disclosure statement must contain “adequate information” and be approved by the court. 11 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1) defines “adequate information” as “information of a kind, and in sufficient detail, as far as is reasonably practicable in light of the nature and history of the debtor and the condition of the debtor’s books and records, that would enable a hypothetical reasonable investor typical of holders of claims or interests of the relevant class to make an informed judgment about the plan.” The determination of whether the disclosure statement has adequate information is made on a case by case basis and is largely within the discretion of the bankruptcy court. In the Matter of Texas Extrusion Corp., 844 F.2d 1142, 1157 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 311, 102 L.Ed.2d 330 (1988). The challenged disclosure statement began its 261 pages of information with a thorough summary of the complex plan in terms that almost anyone could understand. It explained, among much more, the amount to be put into trust and made available for the payment of claims, the various estimates of how much money was required, a warning that the funds furnished to pay the estimates might not be enough to pay all claims in full, the sources of funding, an explanation of the various funding provisions which depended on the outcome of various appeals, how claims would be handled, the four options for processing claims and the background of the case. The disclosure statement continued with a discussion of the Robins company, the Daikon Shield, various litigation regarding the Daikon Shield, the reorganization, the proposed merger with American Home Products Corporation (AHP), the historical stock values of both AHP and Robins, and federal income tax consequences. The final part of the disclosure statement contains actual copies of the Plan, the Claimants Trust Agreement, the Other Claimants Trust Agreement, the Claims Resolution Facility, the Merger Agreement, Aetna’s additional insurance policy, AHP’s Annual Report, the Liquidation Analysis and biographies of the proposed Trustees.

The appellants contend that the disclosure statement is misleading because it contains a statement that in order to approve the Plan the district court must make a finding that the Plan contains enough money to satisfy all claims in full. They point out that in reality there may not be enough money to cover all claims. The disclosure statement, however, makes that clear to the claimants. It states that “if the Court’s estimate turns out to be too low, Robins will not have to make any more money available to pay claims. In addition, the Plan would generally take away your right to recover for Daikon Shield injuries against any other parties.” The disclosure statement later repeats that thought in explicit terms: “[estimation is not an exact science. The money available to pay Dai-kon Shield claims may prove to be more or less than the actual value of such claims. If the estimation decision underestimated the value of the claims, there may not be enough money for the Claimants Trust to pay all claims in full.” Thus, we think appellants’ contention is without merit.

The appellants’ principal challenge to the disclosure statement, however, is that it is inadequate because it does not contain ranges of recovery for claimants with specified injuries. The disclosure statement notes that “[tjhere is no certain way to predict the amount that you could receive under option 3. Each claim is different. Factors that affect the value of a claim include the nature of the injury, the medical evidence available to prove the injury, the medical evidence to prove Daikon Shield use, the presence of other causes of your injury, how long ago you were injured, and what steps you took to enforce your legal rights after your injury became apparent.” There is no requirement in case law or statute that a disclosure statement estimate the value of specific unliqui-dated tort claims. In fact, with so many various unliquidated personal injury claims which vary so much in the extent and nature of injury, medical evidence and causation factors, any specific estimates may well have been more confusing than helpful and certainly would be more calculated to mislead. Given the quantity and quality of the information in the disclosure statement we can not say that the district court abused its discretion in finding that it contained “adequate information.”

The appellants next challenge the legality of the voting procedure used to confirm the Plan. The difficulty surrounding the voting procedure resulted from the 195,000 unliquidated claims for personal injuries (Daikon Shield Claims). The controlling legal provisions for the reorganization include 11 U.S.C. § 1126(a) which provides that a “holder of a claim or interest allowed under section 502 of this title” is entitled to vote on the acceptance of a plan. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a) provides that a claim filed “is deemed allowed unless a party in interest” objects. Robins objected to all the Daikon Shield Claims. B.R. 3018(a) provides that “[njotwithstanding objection to a claim or interest, the court after notice and hearing may temporarily allow the claim or interest in an amount which the court deems proper for the purpose of accepting or rejecting a plan.” The district court, after notice and a hearing, ordered that, for purposes of voting, each Daikon Shield Claim was estimated and allowed to be equal. It found, fully supported by the record, that any attempt to evaluate each of the 195,000 individual claims for voting purposes would cause intolerable delay. The challenge to the voting procedure relies on 11 U.S.C. § 1126(c) which requires that for a plan to be approved by a class the creditors “that hold at least two-thirds in amount and more than one-half in number” accept the plan. The argument is that § 1126(c) requires use of a weighted voting method which estimates the value of the claims and gives larger claims more votes.

We do not decide whether the district court’s voting procedure violated § 1126(c) because, in view of the outcome of the vote, the challenged procedure was at most harmless error. 139,605 claimants voted. Of that 131,761 (94.38%) voted in favor of the Plan. In Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp., 843 F.2d 636, 641-647 (2d Cir. 1988), the district court, faced with 52,440 unliquidated personal injury claims, assigned each claim the value of one dollar for voting purposes. 95.8% of those claims voted to approve the plan. The Second Circuit in reviewing the decision did not decide whether the equal voting plan was error and decided instead that the alleged irregularities were at most harmless error. Given that 94.38% of the Daikon Shield Claimants voted for the Plan, we hold that, at most, harmless error was committed.

Appellants’ next point on appeal is that the district court erred in finding that the Plan complied with 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(7)(A)(ii) which requires that an impaired class of claims such as the Daikon Shield claimants must “receive ... under the Plan ... property of a value ... that is not less than the amount that ... [they would] receive ... if the debtor were liquidated under Chapter 7” and § 1129(a)(ll) which requires that confirmation is not likely to be followed by liquidation or the need for further reorganization. This latter is called the feasibility requirement.

Both such complaints are based on the “same source: the failure of the district court to break out the components of the $2,475 billion figure.” The argument is that since the figure was not broken down, if it turned out to be too low, then the Plan would not be feasible because it could not pay all the claimants in full, which, as the appellants note, is an assumption of the Plan and the disclosure statement. The appellants thus complain about the same fact again, except in slightly different context. In all events, we think there is no merit to the claim, but that the care the district court took in arriving at its estimate deserves mention.

The challenged findings are based on an estimation process that the district court undertook as a result of our decision in A.H. Robins Co., Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 1013 (4th Cir.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 876, 107 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed.2d 177 (1986). In Piccinin, we stated that due to the large number of unliquidated claims that if each claim was tried the process itself “would likely consume all the assets of the debtor.” Id. We suggested that the bankruptcy court “arrive at a fair estimation of the value of all the claims.” Id. To assist in the estimation process, the district court appointed Professor Francis E. McGovern, who was familiar with such matters, as the court’s expert to develop a data base regarding Daikon Shield Claims. The Daikon Shield Claimant’s Committee, the Unsecured Creditor’s Committee, the Future Claimant’s Representative, the Equity-Security Holder’s Committee, Robins and Aetna all had experts to assist Professor McGovern. The data base included the results of a two page “Daikon Shield Questionnaire and Claim Form” from more than 195,000 claimants. It also contained roughly 6,000 responses to a fifty page, “McGovern Survey Questionnaire” and medical records from a random sample of 7,500 claimants. The data collection process lasted more than a year and a half. Each of the experts hired by the various parties used the basic data in various ways to arrive at an estimation.

The district court conducted an estimation hearing from November 5, 1987 to November 11, 1987. At the hearing the parties’ various experts testified. The district court considered that the testimony of the various experts estimated the claims as follows: Robins’ — .8 to 1.8 billion, Equity Security Holders’ — 1.03 billion, Unsecured Creditors’ — 1.54 billion, Aetna’s’ — 2.2 to 2.5 billion, and the Daikon Shield Claimants’— 4.2 to 7 billion. The district court decided that the proper estimate was 2.475 billion.

At this point it is well to relate somewhat more fully the procedure used in arriving at the estimate found by the district court. As the district court noted, the testimony as to the estimated recovery value of the Daikon Shield claims ranged from 600 million to 7 billion dollars. The testimony with respect to the 7 billion dollar figure, however, was not credited by the court.

Professor McGovern was assisted by the experts mentioned representing each of the interests involved in this case, and the procedural steps which were taken were all done by consensus among the experts representing all of the interests, so that the conclusions which the various experts drew from the evidence or the findings of the court from the evidence were the only things left open to exception.

As has been previously mentioned from time to time in the reports of these cases, the district court entered a bar date on claims and prescribed a very informal method of advising the court that a claim was being filed. The bar date of course limited the potential claimants. From these potential claimants, there were eliminated, by standard statistical and analytical methods, about one-third of the initial claims which had been filed. A detailed analysis of those claims not eliminated was performed by sending the detailed questionnaire previously mentioned to a randomly selected sample of several thousand of the claims remaining. The questionnaire asked for information, which, in the most general sense, was received back, concerning the insertion of the Daikon Shield in the claimant and the nature of the claimant’s injuries, including verification by way of medical records where possible.

A detailed analysis of all of the responses was then performed by the expert witnesses who testified in the case. A good example of competent testimony was that of Dr. Francine F. Rabinovitz, who testified on behalf of Aetna. We illustrate with her testimony because her conclusions more nearly match the conclusions of the district court than any other single witness offered. She took the returned questionnaires as a representative sample and weeded out those, for example, with no medical proof of use of the Daikon Shield. As a further example, she classified the claims into those with and without complications and the nature of the injuries claimed. She took a further random sample of the claims as she had divided them up and got three Aetna claims adjusters who had been experienced in the actual adjustment of Daikon Shield claims and instructed those adjusters to set a value on a sample of the claims she referred to them, considering that there was liability, so the only thing the adjusters had to consider in setting a value on a claim was the nature of the injury and of course the proof required and the attendant expenses. The adjusters were instructed not to place a low estimate on the claims. Dr. Rabinovitz, by using this method, drew the conclusion that the compensation necessary, assuming that documentation that use of the Daikon Shield were a prerequisite, would be in excess of 1.9 billion dollars, and, assuming that documentation would not be a prerequisite, a sum in excess of 2.4 billion dollars. To these sums, she would have added modest payments to all active claimants, whatever the merit of such claims, and 50 million dollars as a reserve against future injuries, which made her figures for documented injuries at slightly more than 2.0 billion dollars and for undocumented injuries slightly more than 2.5 billion dollars. Dr. Rabinovitz further concluded that she thought there might be a considerable reduction from disallowance of claims and that she would reasonably anticipate the total indemnity of the obligation to be 2.2 to 2.3 billion dollars. That some reduction is not unreasonable is illustrated by a remark we have come across in the record that one claimant apparently said she took two Daikon Shields a day.

From our brief recital of a small part of the evidence before the district court, we see that its finding of 2.475 billion dollars as the estimate to include all Daikon Shield claims is not clearly erroneous under Rule 8013. Indeed, we think the district court would have been quite justified in accepting Dr. Rabinovitz’ testimony, so appellants may not complain about the district court’s arrival at a somewhat higher figure.

Finally, the appellants challenge as without the power of the bankruptcy court the portion of the Plan which requires the injunction of suits that have connection to the Daikon Shield, against certain entities other than Robins. Robins argues that the injunction is a proper exercise of the district court’s power to channel claims to a specific res or alternately that the injunction is proper because 94.38% of the claimants voted for the Plan and thereby consented to the injunction. We affirm, but our reasoning differs somewhat from that of Robins, although its position, of course, should enter into consideration. The suits in question which some of the appellants wish to bring are against Robins’ directors, Robins’ and Aetna’s attorneys, and Aetna, seeking to hold them as joint tortfeasors with Robins for Daikon Shield injuries.

We begin our discussion by considering the impact of our decision in In Re: A.H. Robins Company Inc., 88-1755(L) (Breland settlement), decided this date, on this challenge to the Plan’s injunction. In Bre-land, we affirmed the district court’s certification of a mandatory non-opt-out class for members of class A and a class which allows an opt-out for compensatory damages for members of class B. Class A is defined as those Daikon Shield claimants who met the filing deadlines of the district court and therefore have a non-subordinated claim against the trust fund set up for the claimants in the Robins’ reorganization. Class B is defined as those Daikon Shield claimants who did not meet the filing deadline or like procedural requirements and are therefore not eligible for a non-subordinated recovery from the trust fund for reasons not related to the abstract merits of the claims. The Breland settlement, however, provided all class B claimants with a second chance to pursue their Dai-kon Shield claims by staying in the class and applying to the Claims Resolution Facility. For class B members the merits of their Daikon Shield claims would be determined in the same method as is in place to determine class A members’ claims except they would have no right to a jury trial. Their claims would be paid by the two Outlier policies issued by Aetna which provide for $100,000,000 to pay such claims. No party challenges the adequacy of the Outlier policies to pay the class B claims. We therefore are entitled to and do assume that the claims of all class B claimants who wish to have the merits and amount of their claims ascertained by the Claims Resolution Facility will be fully satisfied. However, the Breland settlement, in conjunction with the Plan, did not force the class B claimants who chose to opt-out to stay within the settlement. They could elect to forgo the benefits of the settlement and retain their right to sue Aetna and to sue medical providers for malpractice. In Breland, we also approved the class action settlement, which expressly bars the members of class A and the members of class B who did not opt-out from further prosecuting their Daikon Shield claims other than pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Given this bar from pursuing compensation for their Daikon Shield injuries, other than pursuant to the order, the injunction complained of has no real effect on the rights of members of class A and the members of class B who have not exercised their right to opt-out.

The Plan’s injunction, therefore, only has real impact upon members of Class B who have elected to opt-out of the Breland settlement. The injunction under sections 1.85 and 8.04 of the Plan prevents these claimants from suing all third parties other than “insurer[s]” (which includes Aetna) and claims based exclusively on medical malpractice. The class B members who have elected to opt-out, it is remembered, claim to have causes of action as joint tortfeasors with Robins against Robins’ directors, Aetna, and law firms who represented both Robins and Aetna. A suit against any of the parties mentioned by the class B opt-out members would affect the bankruptcy reorganization in one way or another such as by way of indemnity or contribution. See A.H. Robins Co. Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994 (4th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 876, 107 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed.2d 177 (1986). And, in all events, provision for payment in full of all class B claimants has been made.

Bankruptcy courts are courts of equity. See NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 527, 104 S.Ct. 1188, 1196, 79 L.Ed.2d 482 (1984). 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) gives a bankruptcy court the power to issue “any order, process or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title,” and confers equitable powers upon the bankruptcy courts. In Matter of Old Orchard Inv. Co., 31 B.R. 599 (W.D.Mich.1983). Given the impact of the proposed suits on the bankruptcy reorganization and the fact that the class B members who chose to opt-out could have had their claims fully satisfied by staying within the settlement, the bankruptcy court’s equitable powers support the questioned injunction. We think the ancient but very much alive doctrine of marshalling of assets is analogous here. A creditor has no right to choose which of two funds will pay his claim. The bankruptcy court has the power to order a creditor who has two funds to satisfy his debt to resort to the fund that will not defeat other creditors. Columbia Bank for Cooperatives v. Lee, 368 F.2d 934, 939 (4th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 992, 87 S.Ct. 1308, 18 L.Ed.2d 338 (1967); IV Minor’s Institutes 1248 (1883). Here, the carefully designed reorganization of Robins, in conjunction with the settlement in Breland, provided for satisfaction of the class B claimants. However, some chose to opt-out of the settlement in order to pursue recovery for their injuries from Aetna or from medical providers for malpractice. It is essential to the reorganization that these opt-out plaintiffs either resort to the source of funds provided for them in the Plan and Breland settlement or not be permitted to interfere with the reorganization and thus with all the other creditors. Since they have chosen opt-out rather than payment in full, they may have no complaint about a restriction placed on their ability to sue others. Permitting a suit by them in violation of the Plan is a defeat of the Plan and a resulting defeat of the other creditors. “Particularly since the insurance settlement/injunction arrangement was essential in this case to a workable reorganization, it falls within the bankruptcy court’s equitable powers ‘which traditionally have been invoked to the end that ... substance will not give way to form, that technical considerations will not prevent substantial justice.” MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 837 F.2d 89, 94 (2nd Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 176, 102 L.Ed.2d 145 (1988), quoting In re U.N. R. Industries, Inc., 725 F.2d 1111, 1119 (7th Cir.1984).

The appellants finally contend that 11 U.S.C. § 524(e) prohibits the injunction. Section 524(e) states that “[ejxcept as provided in subsection (a)(3) of this section, discharge of a debt of the debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity on, or the property of any other entity for, such debt.” Some courts have held that § 524(e) and its predecessor, § 16 of the 1898 Bankruptcy Act, results in the bankruptcy court having no power to discharge liabilities of a nondebtor pursuant to the consent of creditors as a part of a reorganization plan. See Underhill v. Royal, 769 F.2d 1426, 1432 (9th Cir.1985); Union Carbide Corp. v. Newboles, 686 F.2d 593 (7th Cir.1982). However, the Fifth Circuit has stated that “[although section 524 has generally been interpreted to preclude release of guarantors by a bankruptcy court, the statute does not by its specific words preclude the discharge of a guaranty when it has been accepted and confirmed as an integral part of reorganization.” Republic Supply Co. v. Shoaf, 815 F.2d 1046, 1050 (5th Cir. 1987).

We find the language used by the Fifth Circuit persuasive. Whatever the result might be as to the application of § 524(e) in other cases, we do not think that section must be literally applied in every case as a prohibition on the power of the bankruptcy courts, as appellants would have us apply it here. In this situation where the Plan was overwhelmingly approved, where the Plan in conjunction with insurance policies provided as a part of a plan of reorganization gives a second chance for even late claimants to recover where, nevertheless, some have chosen not to take part in the settlement in order to retain rights to sue certain other parties, and where the entire reorganization hinges on the debtor being free from indirect claims such as suits against parties who would have indemnity or contribution claims against the debtor, we do not construe § 524(e) so that it limits the equitable power of the bankruptcy court to enjoin the questioned suits. We leave questions concerning cases in which § 524(e) does apply for another day.

The orders of the district court appealed from are accordingly

AFFIRMED.

*ADDENDUM

DALKON

APPEAL SHIELD

NUMBER APPELLANT NUMBER

88-1750 Rosemary Menard-Sanford 82114

Karen Velenzuela 82207

Constance Miller Engelsberg 82142 Nancy Lauri Adams 82174

Carolyn Harris 303631

88-1754 Mary Albert 252684

Carol Angus 215751

Judith Beaule 62242

Janis Belcher 237565

Daniel Belcher 237566

Karen Belcher 237564

David Belcher 243035

Melanie Bennett 183837

Nancy Benson 191191

Jean Boeckler 122207

DALKON

APPEAL SHIELD

NUMBER APPELLANT NUMBER

John Boeckler 122208

Janet Bruce 296254

Melody Cannon 228522

Barbara L. Carr 20475

David W. Carr 244903

Helen Carty 78400

Sandra Cassier 7647

Patrick Cassier 7646

Victoria Charnock 228521

Ellen Chodes 42705

Elizabeth Cote 26935

Brenda Davis 111886

Marion DuFord 78493

Deborah Fallon 80309

John Fallon 80310

Dawn Gebo 7306

Janet Gregory 79226

Frank Gregory 79225

Sarah E. Haskell 78399

Pamela Hockenhull 78909

Patricia Johnson 78581

Mary E. Jordan 291790

April Weeks-Korn 78397

Leonard Korn 78398

Debora Lamont 96144

Beverly McClure 80313

Katherine Maher 19424

Elaine Nizza 228523

Donna Oberg 77966

Diane Pinard 7113

Jeanne Robey 237567

Paul Robey 237568

Pamela Saxby 78580

Shellie Shapiro 78583

Howard Shapiro 78582

Sharon Lee Spem 187651

Rebecca Steinbach 281041

Jeannette Sweet 85890

Beverly Tonkin 184469

Donna Tshanakas 222583

Nicholas Tshanakas 222584

Daphne Whitmore 78910

Linda Bisson 172492

Anne Soucy 286513

Sally Adams 225908

Randy Adams 225886

Charlotte Allen 227324

Charles Allen 225896

Jan Allen 225897

Barbara Bill Klinger 225899

Linda Brust 225323

Virginia Bryan Roberts 225901

Gwendolyn E. Buettner 70274

Carolyn Campbell 225900

Lynn Crosby 225902

William Franklin Crosby 233041

Mary Kathryn Deemer 235677

John Deemer 225885

Donna Faremouth 260787

Charles Faremouth 260788

Cindy Franco 225884

Fred Franco 231644

Elena Friedman 225893

Darleene L. Frink 226609

Kenneth Frink 225964

Diane Goshorn 113174

Christiane J. Guignard 219368

Linda Harre 225883

William Harre 225894

June Ellen Harris 225895

Carol Harterink 225903

Anton Harterink 225904

Rosanne Heard 225905

DALKON

APPEAL SHIELD

NUMBER APPELLANT NUMBER

Jimmie Dale Heard 225906

Atha Henderson 225907

Jill Campion Huff 233339

Pamela Johnson 7353

Ted Johnson 7356

Wanda Lancaster 6020

Deborah Jean Lenzi 225485

Betty Leobold 225486

William D. Leobold 235694

Susan Lippner 225890

Robert Lippner 225889

Victoria L. McCord 225888

Cheryl McFarland 192508

Dayna McKendree 225887

Diane Manee Zywotko 225892

Carol Mitchell 225891

Susan Nehrig Cole 46096

Paul Nehrig 46097

Deloris A. Nicolaou 255933

Sherry Peavy 225322

Kenneth Peavy 225488

Flora Poe 109594

Brenda Reilly 225489

Gerald Reilly 225490

Patricia Scolaro 225491

Edward Scolaro 235693

Wanda Joe Selvanik 225492

Michael Selvanik 225487

Janice Denise Simmons 7355

Merrick Simmons 7354

Martha E. Sims 225483

Eslyn South 189220

Tracy Staneart 176376

Debra Renee Thompson 226321

Denise B. Wax 225946

Dan Wax 234731

Rachael O. Thompson 200369

Edwin L. Wilbur 202442

Sharon Malloy Wilber 201016

Harold E. Kerkhoff, Jr. 200370

Robert F. Grant, Deceased 200373 Robert W. Adams 200368

Gillian L. Adams 200367

Mr. R.S. Shaw 285422

Blanche M. Shaw 202439

Donna M. Kerkhoff 200375

Kathleen A. Denise 62658

Jim H. James 200366

Beatrice D. Sewell 200374

Kenneth R. Livingston 200883

Gloria W. Livingston 200372

Harvey H. Friedman 200371

Arlene Whitaker James 200365

Phyllis B. Puckett 225059

Rhalda S. Friedman 202440

Joyce F. Grant 202441

Barbara A. Purvis 202438

88-1756 Albert Sivley 156549

88-1758 Louise Anderson 40014

Jan Beck 40021

Mary Jo Bennett 97533

Sandra Bescheinen 314579

Patricia Bonn 40029

Diane Brosco 40038

Karla Clark 866239

Catherine Crawford 40065

Silvia Crockett 40066

Dee Dahl 269915

Katheryn Duryea 192464

Mickie Engel 179358

Mary Fischer 40095

Arlene Ford (Robinson) 100767

Sandra Fritz 33463

Susan Geisler 236132

Nancy Gossan 275731

Constance Halverson 64890

APPEAL NUMBER APPELLANT DALKON SHIELD NUMBER

Lois Hansel 15085

Rachel Jones 183223

Lisa Kerr 66317

Rosemary Lambert 174880

Nora Manning 40169

Carolie Martin 40172

Lee McDaniel 40183

Eleanor Meyer 236151

Rosemary Nelson 66584

Charlotte Pool 66605

Paye Schultz 14448

Sharon Scott 269922

Ginger Shirley 66666

Yvonne Spicer 67003

Lyndalou Steekler 66566

Shelly Stisser 66682

Carole Torres 66478

Suzanne Walfoort 304062

Mary Ann Watrous

Diane Zapata 153920

88-1759 Lynn Scott

Carol Lopez

88-1760 Elaine Cumley 207022

Jean Abad 268523

Eileen Ackerman 82175

Linda Adamecz 232928

Donna Albright 268416

Christine Alfaros 82173

Cathy Allen 82172

Paulette Allen 269145

Scott Allen 268521

Nancy Alotis 269161

Diane Anderson 268414

Susan Anderson 82171

Douglas Anderson 268519

Anne Angelou 82170

Dimitris Angelou 268516

Cynthia Apple 275727

Ann Frances Aspon 82243

Beverly Annette Back 203008

Deborah Barbour Eaton 82235

Beret Barnes 82169

Dixie Barnes 203011

Beverly Bartley-Mustin 82168

Jane Beedle 82167

Kathy Bennett 275752

Edith (Deedi) Berde 275753

Janice Berg 268481

Hanna Berkow 87077

Birohnie Blair Dowdell 202946

Sandra Bliven Budd 82166

Jennell Boote 82166

Stessi Boyd 275736

Jean Brewer 82164

Geraldine Broeffle 82163

Carolyn Brown 107919

Marguerite Bryson 203023

Sandra Bucsit 268413

Veronica Burns-Peterson 82162

Norma Cabrera Reid 82161

Sylvia Cameron 82153

Chris Campbell 203020

Cynthia Campbell 269162

Linda Carlsen 203010

Jennifer Cheney 268475

Judy Clark 82154

Karen Clement 268518

Karl Clement 268509

Myra Cole 82155

Kathy Collin 32966

Arthur Collin 268503

Patricia Conley 82156

Bonnie Cook 203019

APPEAL NUMBER APPELLANT DALKON SHIELD NUMBER

Sheryl Cooper 202980

Dawn Covell 82210

Dianna Crabb 82143

Karen Crenshaw George 82144

Michael Crenshaw 268506

Linda Croskey 82146

Kenneth Croskey, Sr. 268501

Judith Danforth 269148

Adis Daniels 271762

Monica Davis 233127

Becky Deeter 202989

Maureen DeGaetano 91499

Diane DeRooy 82148

Christina DeWeese 82236

Mary Ann Dizon Lancaster 203018

Catherine D. Tomlinson 202979

Janet Dowling 82149

Larry Dowty Lorraine Dressel 203017

Susan Duram 268471

Susan Jane Durham 82139

Leolynn DuVal 202982

Christine Eager Leback 82140

Cathi Eicher 203033

Charlene Eilelberg 275737

Monica Ellis 82141

James Ellis 268498

Danelia Fanello 82135

Phyllis Fernandes 203039

Edward Fernandes 268496

Gloria Fields 120488

Margaret Fithen 203012

Cleo Fitzgerald 82132

Gregory Fitzgerald 268494

Marcia Fletcher 35024

Julia Foss 268410

Judith Fowe 82134

Robert Fowe 268446

Patricia Fox 268513

Ronald Fox 268530

Juanita Francis 82237

Don Francis 268492

Jackie Franck 229230

Delilia Frank 82136

Marie Gallegos 82137

Pamela Garrett 268511

Mary Jane Gassert 82138

Rhonda Gateman Herman 268510

Linda Gause 82121

Kathryn Gillette 202985

Catherine Gitchell 82123

Louis Gitchell, Jr. 268491

Christine Gitchell 200563

Cathy Reiner Godwin 82122

Cliff Godwin 268488

Pamela Goldader 269147

Judith Grafing 82124

Richard Grafing 268487

Alice Grimes 82125

Mary Grubb 268463

Tamara Guslander 82126

Charles Guslander 268483

Carol Hawkins 268461

Ruby Haywood 82127

Christen Hearn 82128

Melvin Hearn 268482

Eloise Hebert 268508

Christine Henshaw 82129

Gail Hertzler Buehler 203022

George Buehler 268515

Pam Heselgrave 199804

Karin Hoffman 276494

Gayle Holm 202995

Joanne Huffman 268507

David Huffman 268480

David Huffman 200543

DALKON APPEAL SHIELD NUMBER APPELLANT NUMBER

Lori Inglis 151878

Rose Anne Jacobs 4556

Rhonda Jared 82130

Cathy Jensen 82238

Pam Jensen 82204

Christy Johnson 82198

Deborah Johnson 69841

Dale Johnson 214683

Karren Johnson 82199

Linn Johnson 268478

Elaine Jones Donovan 82200

Helen Jones 203043

L.C. Jones 268476

Patricia Jordshaugen 203042

Lucinda Karlic 82201

Stefan Karlic 268470

Donna Kirby 82188

Clyde Kirby 268468

Janice Knudsen 82208

Ruth Korkowski 82186

Shirlee Krumplemann 269164

Maria Krzeszowski 203000

Mieczyslaw Krzeszowski 275715

Sandy Lasicka 82202

Bonnie L. Wasserman 82203

Janet LaWall 82195

Winnie Sue Lee 82196

Linda LeFebvre 202998

Carmen Leuschner 268504

Robert Leuschner 268466

Molly Linderoth 82197

Charlene Linvog 268505

Dixie Llewellin 82190

Dave Llewellin 268464

Janna Gingras (fka London) 82191

Linda Look 82192

Sharron Loveall 228981

Shannon Lowe 130082

Kathy Lumsden 203041

Nancy Lyon 82193

Linda Magnuson 82118

Carol Mahony 202994

Cindy Mahugh 268457

Barbara Maine 82119

Margaret Mamón 82120

Tony Mamón 268442

Karen Manning 82108

Debra Marcus 104289

Kathy Mare 82110

Margaret Maredza 82111

Diane Strayer (fka Martin) 82112

Jane Martin 82133

Richard Martin 268441

Shirley Martinez 268417

Nina Mason 56672

David Mason 268436

Laine Jill McClellan 268412

Sue McCracken 126795

Veronica McCreary-Oliver 82113

Kenneth Oliver 268462

Constance McDowell 268502

Petra (Peggy) McIntyre 203024

Karen Meóla 202999

David Meuli

Jodi Miasnik - 82116

Stephanie Lieb Migdal 82117

Gerald Migdal 268529

Gwendolyn Miller Juleff 82184

Rose Miller 178415

Beverly Mills 82183

Marla Mobley 82160

Shelia Mohn 82182

Valerie Moore 275747

DALKON APPEAL SHIELD NUMBER APPELLANT NUMBER

Maggie Morales 96003

Gloria Morris 269154

Lorena Mrachek 202986

Kathleen Munro-McNeill 82181

Richard Munro-McNeill 268528

Debra Nelson 82180

Victoria Nomikos Blair 82179

Hazel Norbury 203163

Jackie O’Ryan 82189

Johnnie Clay Paradiso 203015

Margaret Parent 116882

Sarah Farrington 82178

Rosalie Passarelli 82177

Carmella Patterson 82176

Samuel Patterson 268432

Sue Peet 215683

Christina Peterson 275765

Christine Peterson 82239

Walter Peterson 268430

Shirley Peterson 145090

Barbara Phair 269160

Heidi Pierotti 82240

Alberta Plate Franco 82242

Pat Premel 268497

Steve Premel 268429

Susan Pupera 82231

Deloris Ragazzo 202990

Victoria Raider Romero 275760

DiAnne Rainard 82233

Marty Reeh 97855

Deborah Rennick 268142

Debra Porter Rettman 203027

Peter Rettman 275758

Eula Rials 82159

Margaret Richards 88274

June Richey 203028

Lloyd Richey 275716

Deja Robins 82234

Valorie Robinson Jensen 82223

Sandra Roose 19657

Angela Rose 268493

Crystal Rose 203003

Sharon Rossmeier 82224

Demetra Rouvas 82225

Julie Ryan 82226

Connie Samp 82158

Donna Sanders 268490

David Sanders 268426

Susan Sasnett 82227

Jay Sasnett 268424

Deborah Brown Saxton 268448

Lisa Schanz 82228

Allahna Schriver 82229

Sharon Seal 82157

Dianne Seibold 82230

Horst Seibold 268422

Teresa Selfe 82217

Eilene Sharp 82151

Kathleen Shelby 82219

Ruby Shumate 82220

Donnell Shumate 268420

Shirley Shumway 43185

Michael Shumway 268525

Sally Siddiqi 82221

Donna Siler 82222

Marilyn Skone 203014

Wanda Slater 268489

Jacqueline Smith 82216

Donald Smith 268418

Kathleen Smith 268486

Robert Smith 268474

Judith Smith 82216

Tim Smith 268415

Deborah Snyders 82152

Anke Spencer 268485

Don Spencer 268437

DALKON APPEAL SHIELD NUMBER APPELLANT NUMBER

Colleen Still 227825

Deborah Stoffel 82214

Jackie Stone 141320

Savana Swain 202997

Clifford Swain 268435

Renee Swanson 82194

Carol Sycks 82213

Robert Sycks 268434

Kathy Syrdal 82212

Phil Syrdal 268431

Ann Tabasinske 89787

Gary Tabasinske 7170

Kay Tamura 82211

Steven Tamura 268428

Margaret Taplin 268445

Deborah Tegelberg 202984

Claudeen Tobiason 82205

Jodi Tranter 203025

Frank Tranter 268427

Erma Turner 32831

Kathryn Ulrich 268409

Vicik Urias 82206

Magic VanAusdal 268408

Vicki Volkersz 82254

Marilyn Waara 275726

Elizabeth Walton Kilner 82253

Teresa Ward 236256

Kathleen Warren 82251

Donald Warren 268524

April Weber 82252

Chriss Webster 21897

Karolyn Webster 268443

Gloria White 82250

Donald White 268425

Lynda Williams 82187

Linda Lee Wilson Cashaw 82249

Susan Wilson 203030

Janet Lee Winston 203013

Mary Winters 268484

Hazel-Jean Wolbert 202996

Dyanna Wolcott 82247

William Wolcott 268423

Ardyth Wuori 82248

Penny Wykes 82246

Sherry York 82245

Gary York 268421

Carolyn Young 31271

Diane Young 275763

Linda Young 82244

Joyce Zaborowski 82241

Sgt. Daniel Zaborowski 268419

Greg Ross 268526

88-1763 Alexia Anderson 225182

Barbara Anderson 231938

Philip Anderson 268170

Paula C. Bannow 11228

John Bannow 271718

Diana R. Beard 10440

Robert Davis Beard 271192

Sherry Bergman 15385

Charles Bergman 271992

Marsha Brown 71237

Jeannette Bulinski 15584

Gregg Gundersen 272541

Wendy R. Busch 10864

Lillian Castillo 122920

Elizabeth Chamberlayne 48517

Carol Cooke 10446

Donna Cornelisse 15383

Denise Crowell 10865

Mike Crowell 271721

Jacki Dasso 10454

John Thompson 271720

DALKON APPEAL SHIELD NUMBER APPELLANT NUMBER

Sharon Ebert 223890

Dennis Ebert 271532

Laura B. Emerson 16301

Gary S. Emerson 263135

Carol Evans 11339

Dennis S. Evans 271538

Melinda F. Evans 10448

Hawley Roger Evans 272532

Carla Magdanz Everett 15585

Barbara Ferguson 10862

Charles Ferguson 262197

Nancy C. Franz 15382

Roger A. Franz 258077

Julia Bloch Frey 163423

Janette S. Garnet McMahon 11344

George McMahon 272764

Mary C. Graham 15386

Ronald Graham 274584

Xenia Graves 11341

Cheryl A. Gruse 11334

Roberta Guildner 10601

Ava Hamilton 11343

Delmar Hamilton 262660

Delores M. Haro 228508

Lori Haugland 206197

Mary R. Hein 16655

William Hein 272766

Janet Heitzmann 10449

Mary Frances Hilko 243918

Lucy Judson 10444

Craig Alan Yeager 272765

Betty Kenzel 10443

Richard E. Kenzel 263118

Judy Kurtz 10452

Judith Lavezzi 6088

Susanne Leuthauser 11337

Truman Leuthauser 262311

Harriet Elizabeth Mann 223977

Sharon L. Mazotti 223979

Daniel Mazotti 268168

Sandra R. Merrill 10451

Roy R. Merrill 262312

Laurel Ruth Mifflin 255908

John Mifflin 273601

Nathan Mifflin 254594

Sandra D. Miller 11342

John K. Miller 268162

Peggy Morgan 11336

Barbara R. Nowak 10445

Mary Ann Perkins 10447

Russell Perkins 263117

Ravonda L. Potter 10450

Roger Jay Potter 271533

Kathy Quinton 16300

Judith Anne Ramsay 10442

Charles E. Ramsay 271723

Pamela S. Reiter 11340

Peter Reiter 274587

Ella Ruth Rogers 9295

Elaine Rogers 16298

Donis Rogers 265558

Christine Seiffert 171920

Stefanie Selden 9271

Judy Sheppard 25992

M. Lee Sheppard 268166

Jessica A. Simkulet 11335

Janet Singletary 16654

Roger Singletary 268167

Evelyn M. Snyder 16302

Andrew Snyder 15387

Marcia Steel 16303

Mary Stewart 15387

Charles D. Stewart 265520

Karon Tiger 234904

Thelma L. Tilman 236252

Durcille Trolinger 206281

APPEAL NUMBER APPELLANT DALKON SHIELD NUMBER

Jo Susan Verspohl 13063

Ronald Verspohl 272554

Carol J. Waltz 16299

Ronald F. Waltz 268165

Kathleen A. Watson 199542

Larry Watson 291814

Abby Weinstein 166871

Barry Weinstein 258076

Diane West 10408

Martha Whitehead 199551

Marlyin Wilson 25436

Vicki Woodard 10441

Tom George 171536

Deirdre J. Zietz 15384

Leonard E. Zietz 260920

Rebecca L. Adair 239633

Gary A. Adair 239634

Sharon C. Angel 145182

Gene R. Angel 304529

Katharine K. Beattie 106539

Fareda E. Belcher 239629

Floyd Belcher 106540

Linda M. Black 239635

William R. Black 239636

Mary A. Bonner 37245

Robert I. Bonner 239637

Johnsie C. Brown 117778

Joseph T. Brown, Jr. 326617

Vicki L. Brown 106541

Randy L. Brown 106542

Juanita L. Brown 106543

Shirley Mae Burroughs 106550

Robert Burroughs 106551

Beverley Davisson 106544

William A. Davisson 106545

Jason W. Davisson 106546

Debra G. Dean 12776

Mary Ann Evertson 106547

Robert W. Evertson 106548

Sandra L. Flynn 106549

Joyce Frieders 106569

Charles D. Frieders 106570

Patricia Graber 269036

Patricia J. Heuseveldt 239639

Ronald W. Heuseveldt 239640

Heather Hull 106571

Kenneth L. Hull 106572

Patty E. Hutton 106553

Leon D. Hutton 106554

Amy Marie Hutton 106552

Charlotte S. James 269035

Kay M. Kincade 243662

Paul W. Kincade 243663

Bonlyn G. Qulick 251829

Anna Louise Luhman 106555

Kersten Males 106575

William Males 106576

Roberta C. Martin 106573

Keith A. Martin 106574

Sarah E. McLeod Kirk 106556

David C. Mclnnis 106557

Billie Rae Mercer 106558

Sandra J. Mertens 106559

Ronald G. Mertens 106560

Kay Diane Milligan 6205

William D. Milligan 6206

Betsy A. Munson 106677

Judith A. Nichols 106561

James R. Nichols 106562

Kathleen K. Pope 106578

Rita M. Raaf 106579

Richard D. Raaf 106580

Courtney L. Raaf 106581

DALKON APPEAL SHIELD NUMBER APPELLANT NUMBER

Elizabeth W. Rinehart 239641

Richard R. Rinehart 239642

Gaylene P. Schommer 106563

John W. Schommer 106564

Rachel H. Scott 106565

David L. Scott 106566

Janet L. Scott 106582

Janice A. Sell 239643

Steven K. Sell 239644

Fay Annetta Smith 106583

Rhonda J. Smith 212510

Peggy A. Sneegas 239645

Roger A. Sneegas 239646

Rebecca J. Stafford 297307

Sonja G. Sweek 106584

Nancy J. Taylor 106567

Mary Ann Thomas 106585

Steven J. Thomas • 106586

Elizabeth E. Tomaszewicz 239648

George R. Tomaszewicz 239649

Patricia Ann Tronsgard 106568

Catherine L. Wood 239630

Joda D. Wright 239631

88-3602 Alexia Anderson 225182

Barbara Anderson 231938

Philip Anderson 268170

Paula C. Bannow 11228

John Bannow 271718

Diana R. Beard 10440

Robert Davis Beard 271192

Sherry Bergman 15385

Charles Bergman 271992

Marsha Brown 71237

Jeannette Bulinski 15584

Gregg Gundersen 272541

Wendy R. Busch 10864

Lillian Castillo • 122920

Elizabeth Chamberlayne 48517

Carol Cooke 10446

Donna Cornelisse 15383

Denise Crowell 10865

Mike Crowell 271721

Jacki Dasso 10454

John Thompson 271720

Sharon Ebert 223890

Dennis Ebert 271532

Laura B. Emerson . 16301

Gary S. Emerson 263135

Carol Evans 11339

Dennis S. Evans 271538

Melinda F. Evans 10448

Hawley Roger Evans 272532

Carla Magdanz Everett 15585

Barbara Ferguson 10862

Charles Ferguson 262197

Nancy C. Franz 15382

Roger A. Franz 258077

Julia Bloch Frey 163423

Janette S. Garnet McMahon 11344

George McMahon 272764

Mary C. Graham 15386

Ronald Graham 274584

Xenia Graves 11341

Cheryl A. Gruse 11334

Roberta Guildner 10501

Ava Hamilton 11343

Delmar Hamilton 262660

Delores M. Haro 228508

Lori Haugland 206197

Mary R. Hein 16655

William Hein 272766

Janet Heitzmann 10449

Mary Frances Hilko 243918

Lucy Judson 10444

Craig Alan Yeager 272765

Betty Kenzel 10443

DALKON APPEAL SHIELD NUMBER APPELLANT NUMBER

Richard E. Kenzel 263118

Judy Kurtz 10452

Judith Lavezzi 6088

Susanne Leuthauser 11337

Truman Leuthauser 262311

Harriet Elizabeth Mann 223977

Sharon L. Mazotti 223979

Daniel Mazotti 268168

Sandra R. Merrill 10451

Roy R. Merrill 262312

Laurel Ruth Mifflin 255908

John Mifflin 273601

Nathan Mifflin 254594

Sandra D. Miller 11342

John K. Miller 268162

Peggy Morgan 11336

Barbara R. Nowak 10445

Mary Ann Perkins 10447

Russell Perkins 263117

Ravonda L. Potter 10450

Roger Jay Potter 271533

Kathy Quinton 16300

Judith Anne Ramsay 10442

Charles E. Ramsay 271723

Pamela S. Reiter 11340

Peter Reiter 274587

Ella Ruth Rogers 9295

Elaine Rogers 16298

Donis Rogers 265558

Christine Seiffert 171920

Stefanie Selden 9271

Judy Sheppard 25992

M. Lee Sheppard 268166

Jessica A. Simkulet 11335

Janet Singletary 16654

Roger Singletary 268167

Evelyn M. Snyder 16302

Andrew Snyder 15387

Marcia Steel 16303

Mary Stewart 15387

Charles D. Stewart 265520

Karon Tiger 234904

Thelma L. Tilman 236252

Durcille Trolinger 206281

Jo Susan Verspohl 13063

Ronald Verspohl 272554

Carol J. Waltz 16299

Ronald F. Waltz 268165

Kathleen A. Watson 199542

Larry Watson 291814

Abby Weinstein 166871

Barry Weinstein 258076

Diane West 10408

Martha Whitehead 199551

Marlyin Wilson 25436

Vicki Woodard 10441

Tom George 171536

Deirdre J. Zietz 15384

Leonard E. Zietz 260920

Rebecca L. Adair 239633

Gary A. Adair 239634

Sharon C. Angel 145182

Gene R. Angel 304529

Katharine K. Beattie 106539

Fareda E. Belcher 239629

Floyd Belcher 106540

Linda M. Black 239635

William R. Black 239636

Mary A. Bonner 37245

Robert I. Bonner 239637

DALKON APPEAL SHIELD NUMBER APPELLANT NUMBER

Johnsie C. Brown 117778

Joseph T. Brown, Jr. 326617

Vicki L. Brown 106541

Randy L. Brown 106542

Juanita L. Brown 106543

Shirley Mae Burroughs 106550

Robert Burroughs 106551

Beverley Davisson 106544

William A. Davisson 106545

Jason W. Davisson 106546

Debra G. Dean 12776

Mary Ann Evertson 106547

Robert W. Evertson 106548

Sandra L. Flynn 106549

Joyce Frieders 106569

Charles D. Frieders 106570

Patricia Graber 269036

Patricia J. Heuseveldt 239639

Ronald W. Heuseveldt 239640

Heather Hull 106571

Kenneth L. Hull 106572

Patty E. Hutton 106553

Leon D. Hutton 106554

Amy Marie Hutton 106552

Charlotte S. James 269035

Kay M. Kincade 243662

Paul W. Kincade 243663

Bonlyn G. Qulick 251829

Anna Louise Luhman 106555

Kersten Males 106575

William Males 106576

Roberta C. Martin 106573

Keith A. Martin 106574

Sarah E. McLeod Kirk 106556

David C. Mclnnis 106557

Billie Rae Mercer 106558

Sandra J. Mertens 106559

Ronald G. Mertens 106660

Kay Diane Milligan 6205

William D. Milligan 6206

Betsy A. Munson 106577

Judith A. Nichols 106561

James R. Nichols 106562

Kathleen K. Pope 106578

Rita M. Raaf 106579

Richard D. Raaf 106580

Courtney L. Raaf 106581

Elizabeth W. Rinehart 239641

Richard R. Rinehart 239642

Gaylene P. Schommer 106563

John W. Schommer 106564

Rachel H. Scott 106565

David L. Scott 106566

Janet L. Scott 106582

Janice A. Sell 239643

Steven K. Sell 239644

Fay Annetta Smith 106583

Rhonda J. Smith 212510

Peggy A. Sneegas 239645

Roger A. Sneegas 239646

Rebecca J. Stafford 297307

Sonja G. Sweek 106584

Nancy J. Taylor 106567

Mary Ann Thomas 106585

Steven J. Thomas 106586

Elizabeth E. Tomaszewicz 239648

George R. Tomaszewicz 239649

Patricia Ann Tronsgard 106568

Catherine L. Wood 239630

Joda D. Wright 239631 
      
      . In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 880 F.2d 769 (4th Cir.1989); In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 880 F.2d 769 (Breland settlement) (heard Dec. 6,1988) (4th Cir. 1989); In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 862 F.2d 1092 (4th Cir.1988); In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 846 F.2d 267 (4th Cir.1988); Maressa v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 839 F.2d 220 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S __ 109 S.Ct. 76, 102 L.Ed.2d 53 (1988); Grady v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 839 F.2d 198 (4th Cir.1988), cert. dismissed, — U.S -, 109 S.Ct. 201, 101 L.Ed.2d 972 (1988); Official Committee of Equity Security Holders v. Mabey, 832 F.2d 299 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1228, 99 L.Ed.2d 428 (1988); Beard v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 828 F.2d 1029 (4th Cir. 1987); In Re A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 828 F.2d 1023 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1246, 99 L.Ed.2d 444 (1988); Committee of Dalkon Shield Claimants v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 828 F.2d 239 (4th Cir.1987); Van Arsdale v. Clemo, 825 F.2d 794 (4th Cir.1987); Vancouver Women's Health Soc. v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 820 F.2d 1359 (4th Cir.1987); In Re Beard, 811 F.2d 818 (4th Cir.1987); and A.H. Robins Co. Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994 (4th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 876, 107 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed.2d 177 (1986). See addendum for listing of parties and Daikon Shield claim numbers.
     
      
      . We have previously noted the “striking similarity both factually and on the legal issues” of the Robins and Johns-Manville cases. A.H. Robins Co. Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 1007 (4th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 876, 107 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed.2d 177 (1986).
     
      
      . We are not persuaded by the argument that the 5.62% NO votes were from the claimants with the largest claims, that being necessary of course to make up more than one-third of the claims in amount. The argument goes that such claimants have the most to gain from a rejection of the Plan, but that proposition, we think, is not only supported by no evidence, it is not supported by logic, and is no more likely than the fact that the largest claimants have the most to lose by a rejection of the Plan. Indeed, it would seem that the latter is the more likely if one must choose between the two. Appellants take no exception to the findings of the district court that the liquidation value of the company is considerably less than its value in reorganization, and the part allocated to the claims of the Daikon Shield claimants is considerably less, $2.5+ billion under the Plan as opposed to $1.6+ in liquidation. So, with a rejection of the Plan which resulted in liquidation, the largest claimants would be the biggest losers. We remain convinced, in view of the 94.38% affirmative vote, that had a weighted voting system been practicable and utilized, the required two-thirds in amount would have approved the Plan. It follows that the error, if any, is harmless.
     
      
      . We note that the district court’s figure was within the range of the second highest estimation — that of Dr. Francine F. Rabinovitz, the expert for Aetna. The district court repeatedly rejected the credibility of the expert for the Daikon Shield Claimants, the only expert with a higher estimation than Dr. Rabinovitz.
     
      
      . All claimants, both class A and B, are seeking to recover for injuries caused by use of the Daikon Shield. The class B claimants were barred from non-subordinated recovery from the trust fund set up by the debtor generally because they failed to file in time. They turned to alternative defendants, which they allege are joint-tortfeasors, for recovery for their Daikon Shield claims.
     
      
      . In addition to the $100,000,000 total of the Outlier policies, if there is excess coverage under the $250,000,000 Primary Excess Policy, it becomes an excess layer policy to the Outlier policies. This, as well as the participation of class B claimants in any excess of the trust fund, provides possible additional layers of protection to the class B claimants. Since there is no challenge to the adequacy of the funds made available to class B claimants we do not address the legal or factual strength of their claims. The district court, in its order approving the Breland settlement, found the claims against Aetna to be weak both factually and legally.
     
      
      . There are approximately 111,000 class B claims, and only 2,960 exercised their right to opt-out.
     
      
      . Subsection (a)(3) deals with community property of spouses and is not applicable.
     
      
      . The court did not decide the issue but assumed without deciding there was a jurisdictional question under § 524 as to the authority of the bankruptcy court to release non-debtors. Republic Supply Co. v. Shoaf, 815 F.2d 1046, 1051 at n. 5. (5th Cir.1987).
     