Denver’s Objections Fall Flat
The settlement faced pushback from G. Denver and Co. LLC, successor to Nash asset buyers Gardner Denver LLC and Gardner Denver Inc., which claimed a property interest in the disputed policies. Judge Hall dismissed the objection, stating Denver failed to provide supporting evidence or law.
Denver attempted to invoke the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP decision, but Hall countered that the ruling was misapplied. Unlike Purdue, where victims’ third-party claims were at issue, she said the claims in Nash’s case squarely belonged to the bankruptcy estate.
A Pragmatic Resolution Amid Accusations
Roumeliotis emphasized that the settlement avoided expensive litigation while securing real recovery for asbestos victims. Meanwhile, he has separately accused Nash executives of siphoning nearly $60 million before the company’s collapse—allegations the leaders deny, citing professional advice and sound judgment.
Attorneys for the insurers and Denver declined to comment on the ruling. Counsel for the trustee did not immediately respond to requests.
