Supreme Court Of The United States - The Am Law Daily
No. 08-2295dIN THESupreme Court of the United StatesTHE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANYand TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORP.,—v.—Petitioners,PEARLIE BAILEY, SHIRLEY MELVIN, GENERAL LEE COLE,ROBERT ALVIN GRIFFIN, VERNON WARNELL, LEE FLETCHERANTHONY, CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY PLAINTIFFS,and CASCINO ASBESTOS CLAIMANTS,Respondents.ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATESCOURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUITBRIEF FOR PETITIONERSOf Counsel :ELIZABETH A. WARRENLeo Gottlieb Prof. of LawHARVARD LAW SCHOOL1563 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02183BARRY R. OSTRAGERCounsel of RecordMYER O. SIGAL, JR.ANDREW T. FRANKELROBERT J. PFISTERSIMPSON THACHER& BARTLETT LLP425 Lexington AvenueNew York, NY 10017(212) 455-2000Attorneys for PetitionersThe Travelers Indemnity Company, Travelers Casualtyand Surety Company and Travelers Property Casualty Corp.
iQUESTION PRESENTEDIn 1986, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theSouthern District of New York (Lifland, J.) confirmeda landmark plan of reorganization for JohnsManville Corporation that channeled hundreds ofthousands of asbestos-related personal injury claimsinto a special trust fund for the benefit of injuredworkers and their families. The linchpin of thisreorganization was the contribution of hundreds ofmillions of dollars by Petitioners and other insurersinto a trust for payment of asbestos claims inexchange for protection from future lawsuits againstthe insurers, all of which was intended to providePetitioners with full and final protection from suitsrelating to, arising from or in connection withPetitioners’ insurance relationship with Manville.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuitaffirmed the Manville confirmation order in full ondirect review in 1988.The U.S. Congress subsequently ratified theManville confirmation order (see 11 U.S.C. § 524(h))and used it as a model for Section 524(g) of theBankruptcy Code. In the decades following the entryof the final judgment affirming the Manville plan ofreorganization, and in reliance on the protectionsenacted by Congress, tens of billions of dollars havebeen paid into “524(g) trusts” for the benefit ofhundreds of thousands of asbestos claimants aroundthe country. In 2002, Petitioners sought to enforcethe Manville court’s orders when certain asbestosclaimants tried to evade the confirmation order bysuing Travelers directly in so-called “direct actions.”The bankruptcy court that fashioned the Manvilleplan of reorganization enjoined these suits, holding
iithat they were proscribed by the 1986 confirmationorder. The district court affirmed the bankruptcycourt’s decision, but in February 2008, more than twodecades after the original orders became final, adifferent panel of the Second Circuit held that thebankruptcy court lacked authority in 1986 to enter aconfirmation order that extended beyond the “res” ofthe debtor’s estate, which it defined as insurancepolicy proceeds.The question presented, therefore, is:Whether the court of appeals erred incategorically holding that bankruptcy courts do nothave jurisdiction to enter confirmation orders thatextend beyond the “res” of a debtor’s estate, despitethis Court’s ruling that “[t]he Framers would haveunderstood that laws ‘on the subject of Bankruptcies’included laws providing, in certain limited respects,for more than simple adjudications of rights in theres,” Central Virginia Community College v. Katz,546 U.S. 356, 370 (2006), and whether the court ofappeals compounded this error by:(a)failing to apply as written a finalconfirmation order and the federal statute (11 U.S.C.§§ 524(g) & (h)) codifying that order, which has beenthe cornerstone of nearly all asbestos-relatedbankruptcies since the statute’s enactment;(b)failing to give effect to the SupremacyClause and holdings of this Court that federalbankruptcy relief cannot be overridden by rightsalleged to have been created under state law; and(c)failing to enforce on collateral reviewthe same final bankruptcy confirmation order that itpreviously affirmed in full twenty-one years ago.
iiiPARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOWThe Petitioners in No. 08-295 are TheTravelers Indemnity Company, Travelers Casualtyand Surety Company and Travelers PropertyCasualty Corp. The Petitioners in No. 08-307 areCommon Law Settlement Counsel.In addition to Petitioners, other appelleesbelow were Statutory Settlement Counsel andHawaii Settlement Counsel.The Respondents (appellants below) arePearlie Bailey, Shirley Melvin, General Lee Cole,Robert Alvin Griffin, Vernon Warnell, Lee FletcherAnthony, Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company,Asbestos Personal Injury Plaintiffs, and CascinoAsbestos Claimants.The Debtors in the Chapter 11 proceedingsfrom which this case arises are tion,Johns-ManvilleInternationalCorporation, Manville Sales Corporation (f/k/aJohns-Manville Sales Corporation, successor bymerger to Manville Buildings Materials Corporation,Manville Products Corporation, and Manville ServiceCorporation), Manville International Canada, Inc.,Manville Canada, Inc., Manville InvestmentCorporation, Manville Properties Corporation, AllanDeane Corporation, Ken-Caryl Ranch Corporation,Johns-Manville Idaho, Inc., Manville CanadaService, Inc., and Sunbelt Contractors, Inc.
ivRULE 29.6 DISCLOSUREThe Travelers Indemnity Company is awholly-owned subsidiary of Travelers InsuranceGroup Holdings, Inc., which is a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Travelers Property Casualty Corp.,which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The TravelersCompanies, Inc., a publicly traded company.No publicly held corporation other than TheTravelers Companies, Inc. owns 10% or more of thestock of The Travelers Indemnity Company.Travelers Casualty and Surety Company is awholly-owned subsidiary of Travelers InsuranceGroup Holdings, Inc., which is a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Travelers Property Casualty Corp.,which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The TravelersCompanies, Inc., a publicly traded company.No publicly held corporation other than TheTravelers Companies, Inc. owns 10% or more of thestock of Travelers Casualty and Surety Company.Travelers Property Casualty Corp. is a whollyowned subsidiary of The Travelers Companies, Inc.,a publicly traded company.No publicly held corporation other than TheTravelers Companies, Inc. owns 10% or more of thestock of Travelers Property Casualty Corp.
vTABLE OF CONTENTSPageQUESTION PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iPARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW. . . . . iiiRULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivTABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiiOPINIONS BELOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL ANDSTATUTORY PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41. The 1986 Confirmation Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62. The Second Circuit’s 1988 Affirmance onDirect Appeal and Congress’s 1994Enactment Codifying the Manville Result. 113. The Bankruptcy Court’s 2004 OrderEnforcing the Confirmation Order . . . . . . . . 164. The Second Circuit’s 2008 RulingSustaining a Collateral Attack . . . . . . . . . . . 19SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
viI.BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION IS NOT—AND SHOULD NOT BE—LIMITED TOTHE “RES” OF THE DEBTOR’S ESTATE . . . . 23A. Nothing in the Constitution or Laws ofthe United States Limits BankruptcyJurisdiction to the “Res” of a Debtor’sEstate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25B. Bankruptcy Courts Cannot FunctionProperly Without Jurisdiction to EnterAncillary Orders Effectuating Their inRem Adjudications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28C. The Second Circuit’s Attempt to Limitthe Reach of the Manville ConfirmationOrder to a Specified Set of “Policy Limits”Ignores the Bankruptcy Court’sExtensive Factual FindingsDemonstrating the Nexus Between theDirect Action Claims and the ContractualObligations Travelers had to Manville . . . . 34II. THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRESTHAT THE TERMS OF A BANKRUPTCYCONFIRMATION ORDER ARE BINDINGON ALL PRIVATE RIGHTS RESOLVED BYTHAT FEDERAL ORDER, HOWEVERTHEY ARE CREATED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39III. THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S DECISIONUNDERMINES IMPORTANT PRINCIPLESOF JUDICIAL FINALITY AND REPOSE . . . . 43A. Final Confirmation Orders Are NotSubject to Collateral Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
viiB. Public Policy Favors Finality. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47C. The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994Prohibits Collateral Attacks on theManville Confirmation Order . . . . . . . . . . . . 49CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
viiiTABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)CasesAshton v. Cameron County Water ImprovementDistrict, 298 U.S. 513 (1936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.,493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Calderon v. Thompson,523 U.S. 538 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries,128 S. Ct. 1951 (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Celotex Corp. v. Edwards,514 U.S. 300 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Central Virginia Community College v. Katz,546 U.S. 356 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passimChicot County Drainage District v. BaxterState Bank, 308 U.S. 371 (1940). . . . . . . . . . 45, 46City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation,544 U.S. 197 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44, 50Continental Illinois National Bank & Trustv. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway,294 U.S. 648 (1935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 38, 39Hanover National Bank v. Moyses,186 U.S. 181 (1902) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 25, 42
ixHecht Co. v. Bowles,321 U.S. 321 (1944) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 25Hilton v. South Carolina Public RailwaysCommission, 502 U.S. 197 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Hines v. Davidowitz,312 U.S. 52 (1941) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc.,880 F.2d 694 (4th Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30In re Airadigm Communications, Inc.,519 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32In re Chateaugay Corp.,10 F.3d 944 (2d Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51In re Chateaugay Corp.,988 F.2d 322 (2d Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44In re Combustion Engineering, Inc.,391 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38In re Continental Airlines,203 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32In re Cooper Commons LLC,512 F.3d 533 (9th Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44In re Dow Corning Corp.,280 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31In re Dow Corning Corp.,287 B.R. 396 (E.D. Mich. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
xIn re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.,130 B.R. 910 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991) . . . . . . . . . 29In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.,960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30In re G.S.F. Corp.,938 F.2d 1467 (1st Cir. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32In re Johns-Manville Corp.,33 B.R. 254 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . 36In re Johns-Manville Corp.,2004 WL 1876046(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passimIn re Johns-Manville Corp.,340 B.R. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . passimIn re Johns-Manville Corp.,517 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passimIn re Johns-Manville Corp.,68 B.R. 618 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . 1In re Johns-Manville Corp.,78 B.R. 407 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1In re Joint Eastern & Southern DistrictsAsbestos Litigation, 129 B.R. 710(E.D.N.Y. & Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . 18In re Joint Eastern & Southern DistrictsAsbestos Litigation, 237 F. Supp. 2d 297(E.D.N.Y. & Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . 11
xiIn re Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.,416 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 47In re Munford, Inc.,97 F.3d 449 (11th Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32In re Skorcz,67 F.2d 187 (7th Cir. 1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28In re Zale Corp.,62 F.3d 746 (5th Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States,128 S. Ct. 750 (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp.,843 F.2d 636 (2d Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Kontrick v. Ryan,540 U.S. 443 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Local Loan Co. v. Hunt,292 U.S. 234 (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 41, 42MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp.,488 U.S. 868 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp.,837 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passimNLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco,465 U.S. 513 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 38Perez v. Campbell,402 U.S. 637 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 40, 41, 42
xiiPetition of Portland Electric Power Co.,97 F. Supp. 877 (D. Or. 1943) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Sampsell v. Imperial Paper & Color Corp.,313 U.S. 215 (1941) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Stoll v. Gottlieb,305 U.S. 165 (1938) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46United States v. Energy Resources Co.,495 U.S. 545 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 31, 37Vasquez v. Hillery,474 U.S. 254 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49StatutesBankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.)§ 105. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 10, 49§ 362. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49§ 363. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49§ 502. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38§ 524. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim§ 541. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49§ 547. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28§ 548. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38§ 1129. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.)§ 157. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 49§ 1254. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2§ 1334. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 49Bankruptcy Act of 1800, 6 Cong. Ch. 19,2 Stat. 19 (Apr. 4, 1800) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
xiiiBankruptcy Reform Act of 1994,Pub. L. No. 103–394, 108 Stat. 4106(Oct. 22, 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 14, 50Chandler Act, Pub. L. No. 75–696,52 Stat. 840 (June 22, 1938) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Municipal Bankruptcy Act, Pub. L. No. 73–251, 48 Stat. 798 (May 24, 1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45U.S. ConstitutionArt. I, § 8, cl. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 22, 23, 25Art. VI, cl. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 22Other Authorities3 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THECONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES§ 1100 (1833) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 ANNALS OF CONG. 624 (1799). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Dan Schechter, Despite § 524(g), GlobalSettlement in Asbestosis Case CannotDeprive Third-Party Plaintiffs of DirectActions Against Nondebtor Insurer, 2008COMMERCIAL FINANCE NEWSLETTER 18(Feb. 25, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Daniel Gross, Recovery Lessons From anIndustrial Phoenix, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 29,2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
xivELIZABETH WARREN, CHAPTER 11:REORGANIZING AMERICAN BUSINESSES(Aspen 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24H.R. REP. NO. 103–835 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 50Jay Lawrence Westbrook, A GlobalSolution to Multinational Default,98 MICH. L. REV. 2276 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Johns Manville Recognized as a ClimateAction Leader by the California ClimateAction Registry, BUSINESS WIRE (June 23,2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14S. REP. NO. 102–279 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16THE FEDERALIST NO. 42 (James Madison)(E.H. Scott ed., 1898). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 26W. Mark Lanier, Conspiracy Theory: PuttingNew Defendants in Manville’s Chair,Asbestos L. & Litig., ALI-ABA (Am. L.Inst. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18
In The Supreme Court of the United StatesTHE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., ET AL., PETITIONERSv.PEARLIE BAILEY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.On Writ of Certiorari to the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second CircuitBRIEF FOR PETITIONERSOPINIONS BELOWThe Second Circuit’s opinion (App. 1a) isreported at 517 F.3d 52. The district court’s opinion(App. 37a) is reported at 340 B.R. 49.Thebankruptcy court’s order (App. 86a) and findings offact and conclusions of law (App. 101a) are notofficially reported, but are available at 2004 WL1876046 and 2004 Bankr. Lexis 2519.The bankruptcy court’s original insurancesettlement order (App. 210a) and confirmation order(App. 261a) are unreported, but were immediatelypreceded by an opinion (App. 297a) reported at 68B.R. 618. The district court’s opinion affirming theoriginal insurance settlement order and confirmationorder (App. 204a) is reported at 78 B.R. 407. The
2Second Circuit’s opinion affirming the originalinsurance settlement order and confirmation order(App. 188a) is reported at 837 F.2d 89.JURISDICTIONThe court of appeals entered its judgment onFebruary 15, 2008 (App. 463a), and denied a timelypetition for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc onMay 8, 2008 (App. 457a). On July 22, 2008, JusticeGinsburg extended the time within which to file apetition for certiorari to and including September 5,2008, and the petition was filed September 4, 2008.Certiorari was granted on December 12, 2008, andthe Court consolidated this case with Common LawSettlement Counsel v. Pearlie Bailey, et al., Case No.08-307. The jurisdiction of this Court rests on 28U.S.C. § 1254(1).RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONALAND STATUTORY PROVISIONSArticle I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S.Constitution provides that “Congress shall havePower . . . To establish . . . uniform Laws on thesubject of Bankruptcies throughout the UnitedStates.”Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitutionprovides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of theUnited States which shall be made in Pursuancethereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land;and the Judges in every State shall be boundthereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws ofany State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
3Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Codeprovides, in pertinent part, that bankruptcy courts“may issue any order, process, or judgment that isnecessary or appropriate to carry out the provisionsof this title.”Section 524(e)of the Bankruptcy Codeprovides, in pertinent part, that “discharge of a debtof the debtor does not affect the liability of any otherentity on, or the property of any other entity for, suchdebt.”Section 524(g)(4)(A)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Codeprovides that in asbestos-related bankruptcies,“[n]otwithstanding the provisio
Travelers Companies, Inc. owns 10% or more of the stock of Travelers Casualty and Surety Company. Travelers Property Casualty Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Travelers Companies, Inc., a publicly traded company. No publicly held corporation other than The T
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Tinker v. Des Moines, 1968 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study United States v. Nixon, 1974 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1987 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Bush v. Gore, 2000 Landmark U.S. Supre
Jun 07, 2021 · MESSAGE FROM SUPREME PRINCESS ROYAL Your Supreme Majesty, Past Supreme Queens, Supreme Elective Officers, Supreme Appointive Officers, Supreme . completed online using a credit card (charges will be in Canadian funds). . Farewell Heather Kras
