Whether the District Court can approve terminating a bankruptcy settlement facility without proper notice to foreign claimants and deny their approved claims based on administrative noncompliance

This case presents a question that the Closing Orders for Dow Corning breast implant Settlement Facility and its Program, issued by the District Court and affirmed by the Sixth Circuit, and the Respondent’s Motion to terminate funding and to terminate the Settlement Facility without a proper notice to the foreign claimants including the Korean claimants is such constitutional that those were not a violation of due process. The foreign claimants including the Korean claimants have not received any notice of the Closing Orders when each Order was issued and further did not receive a notice of status of their claims when the Order granting the Motion to Terminate was issued. Whether the District Court can approve the bankruptcy chapter 11 debtor, Dow Corning Corporation’s Motion to terminate funding and to terminate the Settlement Facility without paying to the Korean claimants without proper notice is a question. This case presents a question that when the foreign claimants participated in a United States class action, the class action was developed into a chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the foreign claimants decided to participate into the settlement program under the Reorganization Plan, the foreign claimants must follow the address update and confirmation requirement which was never provisioned in the Plan documents but established by the District Court’ Orders regarding their address update and confirmation requirement pursuant to the debtor’s mere request. The Korean claimants rather followed the address update and confirmation requirement and submitted their address updates but the Settlement Facility denied them in accordance with its internal rules. The postal service of ii Korea is different from the postal service of the United States. Nevertheless, the Settlement Facility denied the submissions of the Korean claimants’ addresses update entirely and finally denied payments for the claims approved from review. In addition, the Settlement Facility applied the address update and confirmation requirement discriminatorily and unfairly by a violation of Bankruptcy Code. Whether the District Court overseeing mass tort settlement may summarily deny payments for claims to the Korean claimants for administrative noncompliance such as the addresses update, absent willful default, under the federal equity principles is a question. This case presents a question that the interpretation of the terms regarding Section 2.01(c) of the Funding Payment Agreement by the District Court and the Sixth Circuit to terminate funding to terminate the Settlement Facility may comply with the contract principles and match cross border equity principles. The Korean claimants did not receive payments in amount of over six million dollars approved from review of the claims by the Settlement Facility. Whether Dow Corning Corporation, the debtor, may terminate funding and the settlement facility without payments approved to the Korean claimants may match cross board equity is a question.