## Facts

- UNR Industries, a former asbestos manufacturer, faced extensive asbestos-related tort exposure, including thousands of pending suits and large projected future claims due to long disease latency.
- UNR filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 1982, asserting it could not satisfy both current and anticipated asbestos liabilities.
- UNR applied in the bankruptcy proceeding for appointment of a legal representative for “unknown” future asbestos claimants—persons exposed to UNR asbestos who had not yet manifested diagnosable disease.
- UNR sought to use the representative to participate in plan negotiations so future claims could be addressed in the reorganization and discharged.
- The bankruptcy court (reviewed through the district court acting in a bankruptcy appellate role) refused to appoint the requested representative, reasoning that undiagnosed persons did not have provable bankruptcy claims at that time.
- UNR appealed the refusal and also sought mandamus to force interlocutory review.

## Issues

1. Whether the order refusing to appoint a legal representative for unknown future asbestos claimants was a final, appealable order.
2. Whether extraordinary relief by mandamus was available to obtain immediate appellate review of the refusal to appoint (or to compel certification for interlocutory appeal).

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the challenged order was not final.
- The court held the refusal to appoint a representative did not conclusively determine any party’s rights or any specific claim in the reorganization.
- The court denied mandamus, concluding the case did not present the type of clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of power required for that extraordinary remedy.
- The court declined to expand immediate appellate review based on the importance or novelty of mass-tort bankruptcy problems.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy does not extend to every managerial or procedural ruling; an order must finally determine a discrete dispute or otherwise satisfy a recognized basis for immediate review.
- An order declining to create a mechanism to address hypothetical future claims is interlocutory when it does not adjudicate any particular claim or finally resolve any party’s substantive rights.
- The speculative status of potential future tort victims, and unresolved questions about whether they hold cognizable bankruptcy “claims,” weighs against treating such orders as immediately appealable.
- Mandamus is reserved for exceptional circumstances and cannot be used as a substitute for an unauthorized interlocutory appeal absent a clear and indisputable right to relief.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that a bankruptcy court’s refusal to appoint a representative for unknown future asbestos claimants was not a final order subject to immediate appeal, and it denied mandamus because the circumstances did not justify extraordinary appellate intervention during an ongoing Chapter 11 reorganization.


In re UNR Indus., Inc., 725 F.2d 1111 (7th Cir. 1984)