Manville Filings By Selected Industry

7. Manville Filings By Selected Industry

8. ARPC 2001

9. ARPC 2001

10. ARPC 2001

14. FUTURE CLAIMS FORECASTING BASED ON MEDICAL MODELS MAY BE MISLEADING History of the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust Future Claims Forecasting Employing Medical Models Year of Forecast Forecast 2002-2049 % Error 1993 1995 1997 2000 2001 48,600 266,000 333,500 441,000 1,420,000 108% 447% 25% 32% 222%

15. ARPC 2001

16. Future Claim Projections By Others Not Using Medical Models • Milliman USA: pre • 2000 • 2005 • 2010 • 2015 • 2020 • 2030 • 2035 • -- 2000 -- 400,000 • -- 2004 -- 270,000 • -- 2009 -- 130,000 • -- 2014 -- 110,000 • -- 2019 -- 80,000 • -- 2024 -- 30,000 • -- 2034 -- 17,000 • -- 2049 -- 12,000 1,049,000

17. Future Claim Projections By Others Not Using Medical Models(continued) Tillinghast – Towers Perrin: pre 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 2035 -- 2000 -- 410,000 -- 2004 -- 225,000 -- 2009 -- 175,000 -- 2014 -- 110,000 -- 2019 -- 45,000 -- 2024 -- 20,000 -- 2034 -- 10,000 -- 2049 -- 5,000 ~1,000,000

18. Milliman USA Estimates of Ultimate Loss and Expense Due to U.S. Asbestos Exposure Ultimate Paid of $275B $50B Paid Through 2000 U.S. Insurers Uninsured Losses Non-U.S. Insurers $30B $8B $70B $22B $175B $20B

19. Tillinghast – Towers Perrin Estimates of Ultimate Loss and Expense Due to U.S. Asbestos Exposure Net Non-U.S. Insured 31% Retained by Defendants 39% Net U.S. Insured 30% * $200 billion

20. Claims Processing Facility 2001

21. Remaining Assets and Claims Liabilities

22. Transition Table – Alleged to ‘Final’ Injury Category

23. History of 1st Exposures to JM Asbestos Products

24. History of Cumulative Exposure to JM Asbestos Products.

26. Results of Transitioning Selected Forecasts from Alleged to ’Final’ Category and, Based on Scheduled Values, Estimates of Total Liability.

27. Ignoring criteria differences, the redistribution of claims by Category to their nearest Level equivalents and resulting liability estimates based on proposed Scheduled Values.

28. Applying the Proposed Injury Criteria to the Categorization of Claims. • Assessing the Financial impact of the proposed changes in injury criteria is significantly more uncertain than assessing the impact of the Scheduled Value changes. • Based on previous filed claims, we can make some “guess-estimates” with respect to how some criteria changes my re-distribute claims within the Levels and revise the previous liability estimates.

29. The Asbestos Problem in a Nutshell I. The claim problem: (a) disappearance of serious asbestosis; (b) huge pool of exposed people; and (c) screening industry. II. The litigation problem: (a) mobility among the states; (b) mobility within the states; (c) consolidations; (d) mixed diseases. III. The search for the solvent by-stander: (a) almost all traditional defendants in bankruptcy; (b) new industries (friction products); (c) new theories (premises); (d) new players (law firms); and (e) financial community reactions. IV. Political environment: (a) trial lawyers split; (b) labor ambivalence; and (c) alliance between insurers and business.

30. Some Effects Of Bankruptcy • Loss of earnings • Uncertainty of outcome • Delay • Human factors

31. Section 524(g) • Trust assumes present and future asbestos liabilities. • Trust funded in whole or part by securities of the debtor and obligations of debtor to make future payments. • The trust will own – or can own -- a majority of the voting stock of the debtor. • The trust will pay present and future asbestos claims. • Present and future claims will be treated the same. • Plan is approved by 75% or more of asbestos claimants. • There is a future claims representative.

32. Required Court Findings • The debtor has substantial future demands arising out of asbestos-related liabilities. • The actual amount of liabilities cannot be determined. • If no bankruptcy plan, all claims are in jeopardy. • 75% of present and future claimants voted in favor of Plan. • Trust procedures insure similar treatment for present and future claimants.