instructs, extend to claims advanced against the debtor’s insurers. Appellants’ failure to harmonize those two subsections does more violence to the statute than the coherent interpretation advanced by the Bankruptcy Court and the Plan Proponents. That is, § 524(g) injunctive relief may bar claims which, though advanced against some “third party ... alleged to be directly or indirectly liable for the conduct of, claims against, or demands on the debt- or,” are of the kind that would otherwise “be paid in whole or in part by a trust,” by virtue of its assumption of the debtor’s liabilities. As one Bankruptcy Court in this District previously recognized, there is, without a doubt, some tension in these two sections. See In re Western Asbestos Co., 313 B.R. 832, 856 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.2003) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, the In re Western Asbestos
recognizing the language permitting the enjoining of any claim or demand that is to be paid in whole or in part by a trust does not appear to permit the enjoining of contribution claims recognizing contribution in the appropriate case recognizing a right to contribution holding that the interest must be that created by a claim to the demand in suit or some part thereof  which is the subject of litigation recognizing that the usfs has the authority to cancel suspend or modify a grazing permit or lease in whole or in part pursuant to the terms and conditions thereof