A coalition of 21 attorneys general, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, filed a brief on October 23, 2026 urging the United States Supreme Court to review Herlihy v. DBMP, LLC, No. 26-394. The case concerns the effect of a corporate restructuring and Chapter 11 bankruptcy on asbestos personal-injury litigation, including claims involving mesothelioma.
The filing requests review. It is not a Supreme Court decision, and it does not reopen any particular lawsuit or create a new compensation trust.
How did the DBMP bankruptcy arise?
CertainTeed historically manufactured asbestos-containing building materials. In 2019, a corporate divisional restructuring allocated historical asbestos liabilities to DBMP, LLC, while a separate company, New CertainTeed, retained other business operations and assets. DBMP filed for Chapter 11 protection in 2020. The bankruptcy's automatic stay affected litigation against DBMP, and related injunctions affected certain claims involving affiliates.
Why did the attorneys general intervene?
The coalition argues that a financially healthy corporate group should not be able to use a liability-separating restructuring to obtain bankruptcy protections that delay state-law injury cases. These are the coalition's legal arguments, not findings adopted by the Supreme Court. The 21 signatories represent 20 states and the District of Columbia, including New York.
What did the Fourth Circuit decide?
On February 11, 2026, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the refusal to lift the bankruptcy stay. The majority considered the circumstances under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), including an uncapped funding agreement from New CertainTeed intended to support DBMP's asbestos liabilities and the possibility of a future asbestos trust. Judge Robert B. King dissented. The ruling did not conclusively resolve the validity of every divisional restructuring or establish an operating trust for these claimants.
Automatic stay versus asbestos trust: two different mechanisms
Section 362: An automatic stay generally restricts specified litigation and collection actions against a debtor during bankruptcy. Section 524(g): Under a confirmed plan satisfying statutory requirements, a trust and channeling injunction may address qualifying asbestos claims. A bankruptcy filing and a proposed trust do not themselves establish an individual's eligibility for payment.
Why this matters to someone diagnosed with mesothelioma
The forum and timing of a legal claim can change when a company enters bankruptcy. Determining which company manufactured a historical product, when and where an individual encountered it, and which entity bears relevant liabilities may require investigation of workplaces, products, manufacturers and corporate reorganizations. The DBMP case illustrates how historical exposure questions and bankruptcy procedure can intersect.
Case chronology
- 2019: CertainTeed's divisional restructuring.
- 2020: DBMP files Chapter 11.
- February 11, 2026: Fourth Circuit affirms the denial of stay relief.
- September 17, 2026: Claimants petition the Supreme Court for review.
- October 23, 2026: Coalition of 21 attorneys general files in support of review.
Original sources and related H&S research
- U.S. Supreme Court — case docket, No. 26-394 (check for later entries)
- California Department of Justice — October 23 coalition announcement
- H&S asbestos bankruptcy trusts
- H&S mesothelioma information center
- H&S Resource Center
Editorial note: This report describes filings and decisions identified as of October 27, 2026. The official Supreme Court docket should be checked for later developments. Legal information only, not advice about an individual claim. Editorial standards.