Mike Thompson: “I agree with my colleague's assessment. This is simply an effort to abrogate a series of contracts. This was a contract…”

“I agree with my colleague's assessment. This is simply an effort to abrogate a series of contracts. This was a contract dispute involving thousands of people; 97 percent of those people settled those lawsuits. There were some who didn't settle them. They went to court in England and raised a fraud claim and lost. They went to court in this country and raised the fraud claim and lost. In fact, there were two sets of lawsuits in England and two sets in America, and in every case the ultimate disposition at the appellate court level--five appellate courts in the U.S. ruled on the venue question, for example. In each and every case, they had their day in court and they lost. Some of them were on the fraud issue and some on other issues. The bottom line is that it is not our job in Congress to determine factual issues in a lawsuit. So after having lost two sets of lawsuits in each country, they have here a provision in the bankruptcy bill that would in effect open the lawsuit again. It says, ``notwithstanding any other provision of law or contract . . ..'' So it is a clear abrogation of contracts and opens the situation again for courts in this country. In addition to that, I am afraid it is clearly unconstitutional. Specifically, it violates article III in that it represents a congressional attempt to dictate a result with respect to the parties in a final determination by an article III court.”