On October 4, 1991, Judge Jack B. Weinstein issued a decision in several cases seeking damages from the chemical companies that manufactured Agent Orange (commonly referred to as the Ivy case). In this lawsuit, a group of veterans and their families and other civilians claimed not to be bound by the settlement in the original tort litigation (re: Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, MDL 381 (E.D.N.Y.)). The case was filed in a Texas state court against the same chemical company defendants named in the original Agent Orange class action lawsuit. The case was later transferred to judge Weinstein's court. Judge Weinstein ruled as follows:

• the original settlement specifically included the new veteran claimants who had not manifested injury at the . time of the settlement;
• he had already concluded that those who opted out not to participate) in the settlement could participate in the programs established by the settlement;
• the case was properly transferred from a state court to his court;
• the veterans and veterans' family plaintiffs were all covered by the original settlement and were hence prohibited from maintaining a new class action;
• new evidence offered as to the danger of exposure to Agent Orange was not relevant or if it were would have no effect on the original settlement, but would be included in the record for purposes of appeal;
• the new claims should be dismissed; and
• the cases of the civilians who alleged injury as a result of exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam would be remanded to the Texas state court for further action there.

The court specifically stated that its ruling was to protect the viability and integrity of the original settlement over which the court retained jurisdiction. The veterans and dependents have filed a motion with the court, asking, among other things, for a new trial, a rehearing, the opening of any judgment, the taking of additional testimony, the amendment of findings of fact and conclusions of law and new findings and conclusions to alter and amend any judgment or to direct a new judgment, as well as another judge to rule on their motion. The motion was filed pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 455. The Veterans Advocate will report on future developments.