Resource Center

Federal Judge Graham Mullen denied a motion to dismiss on Sept. 2, 2015, filed by Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett against Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC. The judge found that RICO claims were adequately pled and also opined that other challenges, including statute of limitations grounds, litigation privilege, anti-SLAPP grounds, Noerr-Pennington grounds and others were premature.

A Connecticut appeals court dismissed an asbestos action on Sept. 2, 2015, on the grounds of a four-year delay in substituting a new plaintiff in the lawsuit, prejudicing defendants.

New York City Asbestos Litigation Judge Peter Moulton decided Aug. 28, 2015, against a stay of asbestos litigation but announced there will be changes to the way cases are handled on that docket. Judge Moulton said defendants, who expressed concern surrounding NYCAL, "have raised important issues that warrant a complete re-examination of the CMO." Asbestos plaintiffs' and defendants' lawyers will work together to propose revisions to the CMO by Oct. 9, 2015. The court will then review and implement changes.

A judge rejected an expert's testimony from being heard as it would restate the "every exposure" theory excluded from the case. The defense verdict was affirmed, finding that tobacco caused a man's personal injury, not asbestos exposure.

A Louisiana jury sided with defendants Union Carbide Corp. and Montello in a lawsuit that alleged asbestos personal injury caused by drilling mud. The verdict was reached on August 20, 2015

Unwise legislation proposed by Sen. Robert Singer to remove the statute of limitations on asbestos mesothelioma lawsuits would, if passed, make New Jersey “a magnet for asbestos litigation," the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute observes. Currently, claimants can sue within two years of being diagnosed with mesothelioma, regardless of when asbestos exposure occurred.

Authors Kemp and VanDorn review the ability of Illinois defendants to introduce evidence that a plaintiff was exposed asbestos from other sources. "To paint a complete picture for the jury, it is important to put on evidence of all sources of asbestos the plaintiff encountered throughout his or her life," they note. The Illinois Appellate Court recently remanded a case for a new trial, maintaining that defendant Illinois Central should have been able to introduce evidence of the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos at another company's facility.

NYCAL Judge Barbara Jaffe has ordered three consolidated asbestos trials to go forward. NYCAL as been named the No. 1 Judicial Hellhole by the American Tort Reform Association. Also, in a study by Bates White, 13 plaintiffs in a consolidated NYCAL trial received 315 percent more than the national average asbestos plaintiff award. Defense attorneys have asked NYCAL chief judge Peter Moulton to make the court's case management order fairer for asbestos cases.

The Fourth District Appellate Court in Springfield, Illinois has overturned a $1.3 million verdict against the Illinois Central Railroad. The court found that the defendant was not able to inform the jury of the plaintiff's work at another business. The jury could only place blame on the defendant "because it heard no other evidence with regard to asbestos exposure," the court opined.

All 316 asbestos lawsuits set for trial in Madison County, Illinois the week of August 10, 2015 have settled. None of the cases went to trial, and no jurors were selected. Only 24 claimants in the 316 cases were Illinois residents, and only seven were Madison County residents. Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch Executive Director Travis Akin notes, "This staggering number of asbestos cases set for trial in Madison County, almost all of which are from plaintiffs who have no connection to Madison County, shows that greedy personal injury lawyers are continuing to try to game the system to get rich at our expense."

The Fourth District Court of Illinois has reversed a $1.4 million verdict against the Illinois Central Railroad, calling the original trial court's ruling "particularly egregious." The verdict was overturned on the grounds that the court excluded evidence that the decedent had also worked at a UNARCO plant. "Defendants may argue that the jury be allowed to see the entirety of a plaintiff's asbestos exposures – not just a particular defendant's alleged exposure," author Luke Mangan notes. 

The Southeast Texas Record lampoons the Beaumont, Texas-based Brent Coon law firm for "double dipping" in asbestos litigation where asbestos lawyers Coon recommended seek to blame one entity while Coon had already claimed damages from other entities for the same injury. Delaware Judge Peggy Ableman called one case of asbestos claim double dipping "a quintessential example of the abusive practices" in asbestos litigation.

A California federal court awarded summary judgment to Crane Co. July 23, 2015 after finding that the asbestos defendant proved the plaintiffs' counsel did not provide sufficient evidence of exposure.

More than 300 asbestos cases will proceed August 10, 2015 in Madison County, Illinois. Stephen Stobbs, the court's only asbestos judge, will preside over the cases. Attorney Mark Behrens said the action "demonstrates that the court is more interested in efficiency than fairness." Of the 279 cases on the docket filed from 2013 - 2015, only 24 claimants (8.5 percent) are Illinois residents. Only 2.4 percent of claimants are Madison County residents.

Personal injury lawyers' actions in an asbestos trial were deemed "disingenuous" and "disturbing," by Kentucky Circuit Judge Judith McDonald-Burkman on July 23, 2015. In a case against General Electric, lawyers from Satterley & Kelley failed to disclose that they had begun submitting a claim to the Johns Manville trust on behalf of a client. The Judge added, "You’re pregnant or you’re not. You submitted a claim or you didn’t. And that’s the problem I have."   

A Florida jury rejected $19 million in asbestos claims against Caterpillar Inc and Dana Holding Corp. Defendants argued that there was no proof that asbestos exposure from Caterpillar or Dana caused the claimants' father's injury.

A New York justice held July 31, 2015 that a court can undertake an in camera review and disclose abuses in asbestos claims during litigation against an unrelated party. Such action does not require the disclosure of confidential settlements.

An Illinois appeals court rejected a $1.4 million asbestos exposure verdict, calling for a new trial, on the grounds that the defendant should have been allowed to inform the jury that the claimant had previously worked for another manufacturing company.

Introduced to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives by Rep. Warren Kampf, House Bill 1428, the Fairness in Claims and Transparency Act, would require plaintiffs' attorneys to disclose all the claimant’s asbestos actions. The legislation would help ensure that defendants know about any planned or prior claims, or awards, from other asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University School of Law discusses her views on the diversity standard and federal courts impact, which she presented at a Federalist Society event. Shepherd recently authored “Estimating the Impact of a Minimal Diversity Standard on Federal Court Caseloads,” examining whether or not federal court jurisdiction should be expanded and the overt bias in state courts against out-of-state corporate defendants. An example citied is Madison County, Illinois which reportedly favors plaintiffs’ lawyers over out-of-state corporations in asbestos litigation. Approximately one-third of all asbestos injury suits in the United States are brought to this venue.

Former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who allegedly used his position at a private law firm to conceal millions of dollars earned illegally through asbestos claimant referrals, lost a second bid to have federal corruption charges dismissed. U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni said, "None of Silver's arguments is persuasive." Silver will face trial in November 2015.

Author Erin Coe highlights Johnny Blaine Kesner Jr. v. S.C. and Joshua Haver v. BNSF Railway Co. as among "cases to watch" in 2015. The two lower court decisions came to different conclusions about liability in secondhand asbestos exposure lawsuits. The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing those decisions.

According to memory expert Elizabeth Loftus, lying can be innocent or intentional. Given the trend of plaintiffs only recalling the names of solvent defendants in asbestos cases, and considering the evidence in the Garlock case,the author notes there are "apparent fraudulent lengths to which plaintiffs’ lawyers went to conceal exposures to bankrupt companies’ products and to direct attention to fringe defendants."

The American Tort Reform Association upgraded Newport News, Virginia to "Judicial Hellholes" status. ATRA points to Newport News' legal procedures in asbestos cases which unfairly give advantage to asbestos plaintiffs -- leading to an 85 percent plaintiff-favorable verdict outcome. Author Steve Ambrose cites two reform measures from the ATRA report: "A mainstream overhaul of 'substantial factor' causation and applying evidentiary rules fairly for both plaintiff and defendant."

A California state appeals court dismissed a subsidiary of BorgWarner Inc. from $32.5 million in punitive damages in an asbestos lawsuit. The court ruled that claimants did not clearly establish the defendant's financial condition.

In a rare mid-year adjustment, the American Tort Reform Foundation moved Newport News, Virginia from its less critical watch list to full “judicial hellhole” status. The status is based on research that shows defendants are more likely to lose trials in Newport News than any other jurisdiction in the U.S. The American Tort Reform Foundation specifically cites problems with asbestos litigation in the jurisdiction.

A Tennessee federal court transferred an asbestos case to Louisiana on the grounds that the plaintiff's exposure occurred in Louisiana. The court wrote, “Whether or not venue is proper in this Court... the interests of justice are best served by this transfer."

NYCAL Judge Peter Moulton is said to be under pressure to decide what the NYCAL case management order should be for asbestos cases. A New York appellate court ruled July 9, 2015 that Judge Sherry Klein Heitler, who previously oversaw the docket, was within her powers to amended the CMO to allow for punitive damages, but she exceeded her authority and violated defendants’ due process rights in ordering the jury to be charged at the end of the evidentiary phase. "From my point of view as a defense attorney, asbestos litigation is not the appropriate type of litigation for punitive damages," Curt Cutting of Horvitz & Levy LLP observed.

The number of out-of-state asbestos plaintiffs in Philadelphia remains high despite changes to the mass tort program. As of April 2015, 25 percent of asbestos claims were filed by out-of-state plaintiffs. 

A July 9, 2015 decision by a New York appellate court says that while Judge Heitler was within her powers when she amended the asbestos case management order to allow for punitive damages, she exceeded authority and violated due process protections by charging the jury at the end of the evidentiary phase. “As a result, the long-term viability of punitive damages in NYCAL cases is back in question,” the authors Berry, Scrudato and Casmere of Schiff Hardin LLP write.

In an April 2014 decision, Judge Heitler was within her powers when she amended the asbestos case management order, a New York appellate court found, but Heitler exceeded her authority and violated due process protections by having the jury charged at the end of the evidentiary phase. This left defendants not knowing whether or not punitive damages would be sought, the court said.

For manufacturers being sued, the outcome of the lawsuit often depends on where the case is filed. For example, the asbestos docket in Madison County, Illinois had 1,660 lawsuits filed in 2013, and 92 percent of these were on behalf of out-of-state residents.

In response to asbestos-related claims, a Maryland court ruled that defendants had a plausible federal defense related to following U.S. Coast Guard specifications when supplying equipment.

Court records show that in 2014, Ford Motor Company said Weitz & Luxenberg, the employer of former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, was gaming the asbestos tort system. Silver is accused of using the private firm to conceal illegal kickbacks for asbestos claimant referrals. Also, Ford's attorneys said regarding the plaintiff firm's failure to file viable claims with asbestos bankruptcy trusts, “The only conceivable motive for plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to file such meritorious claims is gamesmanship, pure and simple."

Former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is refusing to disclose outside income in court proceedings, according to filings disclosed to the public. Silver is accused of receiving $3 million for illegally obtained asbestos claimant referrals at his private law practice. Silver allegedly pushed state and other funding to a doctor's research practice in exchange for the referrals.

On June 24, 2015, a California appeals court upheld a trial court's earlier ruling that an asbestos plaintiff had not established triable issues.

The Texas Supreme Court ordered a Dallas District Court to dismiss a $2.64 million asbestos verdict against Dow Chemical based on state law concerning premises liability and subcontractors. 

Dr. Robert Taub, the doctor who allegedly steered asbestos patients to former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's law firm in exchange for state funds, treated a patient 22 days before Silver's firm filed a lawsuit on the patient's behalf. The lawsuit resulted in an $11 million verdict. The author of the article observes, "Jurors found [Silver] went to great lengths to conceal his relationship with Taub." 

On June 16, 2015, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1492 into law. The bill is designed to bring transparency to asbestos and silica claims and end "double dipping" by asbestos plaintiffs' lawyers who file conflicting claims about individuals' exposure seeking to profit unfairly from trust resources and take resources away from legitimate future claimants.

On June 16, 2015, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1492, which will increase transparency in asbestos litigation. The measure requires asbestos plaintiffs to file with bankruptcy trusts before they can sue. This will provide courts with increased ability to stay trials. Defendants will also be able to file a motion to stay proceedings if they believe the claimant could file a trust claim. John Wittman, a spokesman for Gov. Abbott, said, “Governor Abbott signed H.B. 1492 to increase transparency in asbestos litigation and shed light on the very real problem of double-dipping in cases relating to this issue."

On June 15, 2015, plaintiff lawyers for asbestos claimants in the Garlock case argued that a representative for future plaintiffs cannot cast a ballot on the debtor's Chapter 11 plan.

Gov. Bruce Rauner's proposed lawsuit reform legislation is necessary and will improve Illinois' economy and jobs base, according to Travis Akin of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch. Illinois has been ranked the fifth worst state in the U.S. for legal fairness. One of Gov. Rauner's proposed reforms would help stop venue shopping. Akin adds, "in one notorious personal injury lawyer friendly Illinois county, 98% of the asbestos lawsuits filed there are for plaintiffs who do not live in that county."

Robert Taub, the former Columbia University Medical Center doctor who was a key player in former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s indictment, has filed a lawsuit against the University over his dismissal. Taub was allegedly referring asbestos patients to the personal injury law firm that employed Silver -- and in return Silver was directing state funds to Taub as research grants. Edward Gelmann, deputy director of the medical center, commented that the referrals were "not something that I would do or expect from a colleague.”  

In response to the defendants' request to stay New York asbestos litigation for 60 days, plaintiffs' attorneys reportedly say it is neither "the time nor the occasion." This article details the events preceding motions to change the 27-year-old CMO -- from chief judge Sherry Heitler's reintroduction of punitive damages in asbestos litigation, to ATRA's identification of NYCAL as the Number One Judicial Hellhole, to former Assembly Speaker Silver's indictment. A summary letter of defendants' claims is quoted as well.

The authors discuss a U.S. District Court ruling made under an assumption that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would find a manufacturer has no strict liability for asbestos-containing parts it did not manufacture or supply. A manufacturer could still face a liability claim for negligence, the authors argue.

John A. Turlik of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney testified in the Garlock Sealing Technologies bankruptcy case in 2013 that Philadelphia was an especially tough jurisdiction for asbestos defendants. Cases were brought into Philadelphia from less plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions, Turlik said. Judge George Hodges ruled in 2014 in the landmark Garlock case that plaintiffs' attorneys had been "double dipping" into asbestos trusts. Philadelphia was named the American Tort Reform Association's Number one Judicial Hellhole in 2010 and 2011.

Opinions on the state of asbestos litigation were debated June 2, 2015 at the Ninth Annual Judicial Symposium on Civil Justice Issues, in a session labeled, "Asbestos Litigation: lasting perversions of Common Law." Panelist Mark Behrens of Shook Hardy commented, “We want juries to be fully informed… The only way to do that is to require that those [bankruptcy trust] claims forms be disclosed before trial.” Former Delaware Judge Peggy Ableman observed the current system is not transparent and said it offers “a lot of incentives for fraud.”

On June 3, 2015, a Wisconsin federal judge denied expert testimony that claimed "any exposure" to asbestos could cause disease. (Spychalla v. Boeing)

Behrens and Goldberg reflect on how New York became such a "lucrative place to file asbestos lawsuits," as exposed by the indictment of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. To restore confidence in the judiciary system, New York must "have true transparency between the tort system and asbestos bankruptcy trusts." The lack of transparency leads to abuses, many of which have been documented. Behrens and Goldberg trace exposure of the issue back to a 2007 Ohio case, calling for reform of the tort system.

Companies could be liable for asbestos negligence claims on products they did not manufacture, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled, leaning on an earlier Tincher v. Omega Flex Supreme Court decision. U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno held, "a product manufacturer is not liable in strict liability for asbestos-containing component parts that it neither manufactured nor supplied, but can be liable in negligence if it knew those component parts would be used, knew asbestos was hazardous, and failed to provide a warning."

Wisconsin's three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims was grounds for a federal judge to grant summary judgment to asbestos defendant Owens-Illinois. 

Recently unsealed data show that Madison County, Illinois plaintiffs account for about 20 percent of total asbestos payouts from claims against Garlock Sealing Technologies. The database was recently unsealed in Garlock's bankruptcy proceedings.

Defendants' challenges to an expert's "every exposure" testimony in a case against Ford Motor Co. and Honeywell International, Inc. were enough to inform asbestos plaintiffs that defendants would challenge similar testimony from another expert, a federal judge ruled in North Carolina May 26, 2015.

On May 27, 2015, a Pennsylvania federal judge granted Pratt & Whitney motion for summary judgment in an asbestos exposure case. The motion predicts that state law will free the defendants from liability for asbestos in components of their products unless they were aware of the health risks when the products were sold.

On May 26, 2015, an attorney acted in bad faith by questioning an asbestos expert about the relationship between the claimant’s chemotherapy and renal failure after telling the court he would not ask such questions. The attorney was sanctioned by a California federal judge.

On May 22, 2015, the Texas Senate passed HB 1492, a bill that aims to end "double dipping" by plaintiffs' attorneys in asbestos litigation. Double dipping refers to personal injury lawyers suing a company and claiming its products alone harmed their clients and then also filing claims with asbestos trusts blaming other products for the injury.Texas tort reform groups such as Texans Against Lawsuit Abuse campaigned for its passage. HB 1492 now goes to Gov. Greg Abbott for signing.

Texas legislation HB 1492 was passed by the Senate May 23, 2015, and has been sent to the governor for signature. It is an act to increase transparency in asbestos litigation by requiring claimants to file bankruptcy trust claims before filling a lawsuit. If signed into law, the legislation would enable courts to stay trials until they receive notice of all bankruptcy trust claims filed. It would also allow courts to modify judgements based on any trust claims filed after the trial. The bill was approved by the House May 11, 2015. The effective date is September 1, 2015.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania rejected the "any exposure" or "each and every fiber" theory, stating that it is not sufficient to prove personal injury causation in asbestos exposure lawsuits. The opinion was a response to a case in which a claimant alleged asbestos exposure from welding rods and sheet gaskets in the workplace.

The federal FACT Act has gained the support of asbestos defense lawyers in Madison County, Illinois, a hotbed for asbestos lawsuits. The bill would help to increase transparency in asbestos litigation by targeting plaintiffs' attorneys' practice of "double dipping" into bankruptcy trust funds by citing conflicting evidence in multiple claims. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. notes that “the FACT Act increases transparency in the Bankruptcy Code in order to protect the finite funds available.” Rep. Goodlatte also notes that it will help asbestos claimants and protect their privacy.

A catalogue of evidence exposing plaintiffs' attorneys in the Garlock Sealing Technologies bankruptcy is now available to the public following a judge's ruling. The Legal Newsline story points out that the documents "allegedly showed a pervasive pattern of misrepresentation and suppression of evidence on the part of asbestos plaintiffs and their attorneys."

Citing state workers' compensation law, a Louisiana federal court dismissed asbestos injury claims against AT&T Corp. and BellSouth Telecommunications LLC on May 7, 2015. The judge determined that state workers compensation law barred the plaintiff's claim.

The Texas Supreme Court sided with Dow Chemical Co. in a clarification of Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, affirming that premise owners are generally not liable for work-related injuries to the employees of independent contractors. Attorneys say asbestos plaintiffs' lawyers often try to claim negligence in seeking to circumvent the law's restrictions.

The Texas House of Representatives passed House Bill 1492 on May 8, 2015. The bill would increase transparency in asbestos litigation by requiring claimants to file bankruptcy trust claims before filing a lawsuit. Courts would have the ability to stay all trials until they obtain notice of all trust claims.

Author Sara Warner notes that the Garlock case has triggered a debate on whether -- with more public information about asbestos claims, and conflicting evidence of injury -- might we see government liens against payments to claimants in the future. With increasing calls for bankruptcy trust transparency and fairness, will asbestos plaintiff lawyer excesses hurt injured individuals and their families in this manner?

On May 1, 2015, an Illinois jury rejected a plaintiff's claim that his lung cancer developed from a combination of cigarette smoking and alleged asbestos exposure. Supporting the defendants' argument, the jury found that the claimant's cigarette smoking alone caused his cancer.

Several political wrongdoings in New York and New Jersey were exposed May 4, 2015, following suit of the indictment of former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who is charged with receiving kickbacks from an asbestos litigation scheme. Recently, two officials under Gov. Chris Christie were arraigned. Separately, state Senate leader Dean Skelos and his son were arrested on several charges.

Federal investigators say they are now wiretapping potential leads from the investigation of former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. This information follows Silver's indictment over asbestos kickbacks and other acts, as well as charges brought against Silver's son-in-law in a Ponzi scheme not related to the indictment.

A new report shows Madison County, Illinois has a very high rate of lawsuits. Plaintiff's attorneys are drawn to the county's reputation for an imbalance in asbestos lawsuit verdicts. The lawsuits have generated a $14 million surplus for Edwardsville and has put Madison County's in the middle of a national debate over asbestos lawsuits. The county has the most lawsuits filed in Illinois, twice as many as Chicago’s Cook County. Over three years, Madison County had five times as many asbestos lawsuits as Philadelphia, which is about 65 times larger. Gov. Rauner wants a law to curb this "venue shoping." Also noted is the cozy relationship between Edwardsville’s judges and the asbestos plaintiff lawyers who contribute to their campaigns.

A Texas state court of appeals says a lower court erred when it granted a new trial for an asbestos claimant. At the trial court level, a previous jury had found that E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. was not liable for the claimant's death, then a new trial was granted. The state court of appeals says the lower court abused its discretionary privileges in granting the new trial.

Earlier this April, Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer stopped Belluck & Fox's attempt to block subpoenas for documents from asbestos bankruptcy trust claims and processing facilities. In a North Carolina federal court April 24, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC said Belluck & Fox is recycling the same arguments as before, attempting to stop pertinent discovery. “Defendants’ current objections are simply a re-argument of a straightforward discovery dispute that this court referred to Judge Cayer in the first place,” Garlock said.

Federal prosecutors added a new charge to former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's indictment Thursday. The charge alleges that Silver took actions as a state official in exchange for being able to put illegally obtained funds into investment opportunities. This charge amends Silver's February 2015 indictment, which included mail fraud, extortion and wire fraud.

Federal prosecutors have added a new charge to former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's indictment. Added Thursday, the new charge alleges that Silver transferred almost $300,000 of illegally obtained funds into investments not available to the general public.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed on April 17, 2015 a summary judgment ruling from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The Court had earlier granted summary judgment for P&H Mining, which faced claims from a man who said he developed lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos in his workplace.

A Pennsylvania appellate court and the trial court are in agreement that plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence of causation of harm against P&H Mining Equipment in an asbestos case.

Corruption charges naming former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver are revealing unseemly connections between the politicians and asbestos trial lawyers, and the public airing of dirty laundry is bearing fruit. Consider the revealing drama in New York’s asbestos court, where defense lawyers reportedly say the “docket has been rigged to favor one tort firm, Weitz & Luxenberg.”  The lawyers also wrote to the new NYCAL chief judge, Peter Moulton, that the excesses in this court are out-of-step with other prominent asbestos venues.

A recent study by the Illinois Civil Justice League found that the rate of Madison County case filings was significantly higher than in other Illinois counties. This imbalance has been attributed to Madison County's "rocket docket," which is known for giving plaintiff's attorneys favorable asbestos verdicts. Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch's Travis Akin calls Illinois "the lawsuit abuse capital of the Midwest."

A report by the Illinois Civil Justice League says Cook and Madison counties have unusually high rates of lawsuits in comparison to other counties. Madison County reportedly handles up to half of asbestos-related cases in the U.S. ICJL President John Pastuovic observes that the high rates of lawsuits may drive businesses away from the state.

New York Judge Barbara Jaffe found that expert testimony in a case against Ford Motor Co. did not sufficiently establish that exposure to friction products during auto repair was the cause of injury.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed HB 2603 into law on April 9, 2015, that will require asbestos plaintiffs' lawyers to disclose if they have filed, or are considering filing, multiple claims for their clients. HB 2603, sponsored by Rep. Sonny Borrelli, is designed to help prevent "double dipping" in asbestos claims.

To disclose trust claim filings and intended filings, set timelines related to litigation, define the extent of privilege of trust documents and set other evidence standards, allow certain discovery, allow defense motions requiring additional trust filings, provide for compensation adjustments related to subsequent trust claim payments, address confidentiality issues, establish severability, define legislative intent, and appy retroactively to claims pending on the effective date, July 3, 2015. The bill was passed by the Arizona Legislature, and on April 9, 2015 was signed into law by Governor Doug Ducey.

The new chief judge for New York City's asbestos docket, Justice Peter Moulton, plans to probe accusations of the court giving favorable treatment to Sheldon Silver-linked firm Weitz & Luxenberg. “You can be assured that I’ll be looking under the hood scrupulously,” Justice Peter Moulton told an audience of more than 200 lawyers involved in asbestos litigation, at a special public meeting at Manhattan Supreme Court. Moulton also promised transparency in all future asbestos cases, with all motions being heard in open court.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed HB 2603, asbestos transparency legislation, on April 9, 2015, stating, "Our administration is steadfastly committed to ensuring the tort process is fair for all parties involved."  The law takes effect July 3, 2015.

Former Delaware Superior Court Judge Peggy Ableman calls for and proposes a uniform asbestos case management order to be put in place across the U.S. Such a CMO would bring more transparency to asbestos claims. She says asbestos is rife with "widespread manipulation and abuse," and references recent developments in the Garlock case as an example. Ableman lays some of the blame for the abuses on judges and all attorneys. She notes that the extensive abuse by plaintiffs' lawyers means that legitimate claimants often receive little compensation relative to what was intended. 

A Texas asbestos reform bill, HB 1492, introduced by State Rep. Doug Miller, is being applauded as a needed reform to reduce asbestos fraud and abuse. Julian Alvarez of Rio Grande Valley Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse said about the double-dipping, “It is unacceptable for personal injury lawyers to engage in this unethical behavior to fatten their paychecks, especially when it reduces the resources available to compensate truly injured individuals.” Supporters of the bill include Texans for Lawsuit Reform and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among others.

If Sheldon Silver is convicted, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara plans to seize his Albany pension, two of his homes and some of his financial accounts. Bharara filed a motion seeking a court-ordered seizure of the assets on March 31, 2015. Silver has been indicted for a fraud and kickback scheme to generate asbestos injury claims.

Following the exposure of fraud involving former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, 45 law firms have asked for a 60-day stay of all asbestos litigation in the Manhattan Supreme Court. The lawyers say the court's case management rules are not fair or balanced and favor large plaintiff firms like Weitz & Luxenberg. Among the defense firms concerns are the grouping of unrelated cases and the reinstatement of punitive damages. The firms are calling for an overhaul of the case management rules as well as asking for the stay order.

Recent speculation about asbestos litigation focuses on whether the environment depicted by the Sheldon Silver case can project onto other local jurisdictions. During the Beverly Hills Perrin Conference on asbestos litigation, topics of discussion included several cities on the Judicial Hellholes watch list. The article calls the Silver case and similar situations an "iron triangle" in which legislators, plaintiffs lawyers and plaintiff-friendly judges are appointed and receive support form the same lawmakers.

New York City asbestos defendants have asked for a 60-day stay of pending litigation in a joint motion to the NYCAL court. They want the parties involved to rework the case management order so that it is fair and balanced.

Emirical evidence shows a discrepancy between New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) consolidated trial verdicts and individual trial verdicts in NYCAL and nationally. The authors point to a proliferation of consolidations of cases in NYCAL -- and a focus on efficiency that has reportedly created procedural and jury biases. Concerns are raised about inflated plaintiff verdicts in number of outcomes and in verdict amounts -- as well as whether defendants due process is being violated. The size of NYCAL verdicts are more than three times the national average.  

Defense counsel motion for stay and attachments submitted to NYCAL chief judge Peter Moulton prior to an April 9, 2015 open meeting and requesting a 60-day stay and revision of the case managment rules for the court. Numerous defense law firms representing a multitude of companies have signed onto the motion. The submission raises many concerns about NYCAL rules and cites evidence to show how the court is out of the mainstream and using procedures not reflective of the current asbestos claims environment.

Joint defense counsel letter to Judge Peter Moulton states that the NYCAL procedures must be updated to address mullitple issues, including that the current rules are out-of-date, unfair, outside the norm, predudicial, generating much higher than normal verdicts, and, contrary to most major asbestos venues, allowing of punitive damages as well as joining together plaintiffs with diverse circumstances.  In addition, NYCAL is devoting resources increasingly to smokers' lung cancer claims, which reduce resources for future asbestos claimants.

Everest Re Group, Ltd. seeks to reopen a case which resulted in the insurer being ordered to pay $1.7 billion into the Pittsburgh Corning bankruptcy trust fund. Everest says the asbestos lawyers displayed "pervasive fraudulent conduct" during proceedings. Judge George R. Hodges is quoted in the article saying similar evidence in the Garlock case suggests a process “infected by the manipulation of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers."

Using primarily the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s lawyers, and some additional analysis of the overlap between Garlock claiming and Pittsburgh Corning ballots done by Bates White, Mt. McKinley is essentially asking the court to re-open the Pittsburgh Corning bankruptcy based on fraud.  To quote the pleadings, “Mt.McKinley discovered evidence that law firms voting almost $650,000,000 in claims were committing fraud in this and other bankruptcies by telling two different stories concerning the same claimants’ asbestos exposure before courts in tort cases and in bankruptcy cases. As part of that scheme, they were also systematically withholding filing trust claims to avoid disclosing evidence of exposure to bankrupt companies’ asbestos products in tort litigation. Such behavior calls into question the integrity of votes as well as the integrity the Plan confirmation process in this case.”

The number of civil filings in Texas decreased 17 percent from 2005 to 2014 and continues to decline, especially in smaller counties. Yates specifically cited Jefferson County, which has been called a "judicial hellhole." Some state officials believe the drop in civil filings is a result of tort reform.

Attorney Benjamin Shein said in 2013 that his firm focused on proving claims against solvent companies before filing claims against bankrupt companies. In 2014, Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges ruled that Shein's firm delayed filing because the other claims could have made Garlock appear less liable. The claimant's attorneys later filed 20 claims with bankruptcy trusts.

A Pennsylvania Superior Court on March 19, 2015 found that for asbestos-related injury, a two-year statute of limitations applies to wrongful death claims. The court rejected a plaintiff's filing against General Electric on the behalf of a descendant.

Darren McKinney of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) said Durbin’s comments on his asbestos exposure bill were exaggerated for political purposes. “This is a fiction that he has created on behalf of the plaintiff’s bar to which he owes much.” Durbin’s political campaigns have been heavily supported by asbestos plaintiffs’ lawyers. In May, Vice President Biden attended a Durbin/DSCC fundraiser at Simmons’ home. Simmons' attorneys gave Durbin $136,185 in his last two campaigns. McKinney also said Durbin’s bill does not acknowledge that asbestos is already heavily regulated by OSHA and the EPA.

This opinion piece discusses fraud in the asbestos litigation system. Author Dick Weekley puts the asbestos lawyers' actions into simple terms of "right" and "wrong." He adds, "Our courts should be forums for the honest resolution of disputes, not a field of dreams in which mass tort lawyers play games to enrich themselves."

Lawsuit reform coalition spokesperson Travis Akin describes the extent of asbestos litigation in Madison County, Illinois and urges residents there to learn more from the AsbestosLitigationWatch.org website.

Sheldon Silver’s former law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg, which has been accused of using its relationship with Silver in the New York City Asbestos Litigation court (NYCAL), is being scrutinized for its extensive ties to asbestos bankruptcy trusts. The law firm helps to control 15 of these trusts, which have paid out over $12 billion in the past ten years, and it files claims against these and other trusts for its own clients. The author points out that the “system is rife with double-dipping abuse.”

The Madison St.-Clair Record editorializes about how asbestos plaintiffs attorneys should exercise caution when sponsoring research to help expand asbestos-related litigation. The example of former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, recently indicted for secretly exchanging state research funds for referrals of asbestos clients for his law firm, is cited. The editorial points out that "Sheldon Silver was a dog not to lie down with," given his recent troubles.

In regard to Sheldon Silver's February 24, 2015 motion to dismiss because of pre-trial publicity, filed by Silver's attorney Steven Molo, U.S. prosecutor Preet Bharara responded that his office has long provided leadership in “combating public corruption through prosecutions of public officials who use their office for self-enrichment or who otherwise abuse their official positions.” Bharara added that no court has found reason to dismiss an indictment as a result of pretrial publicity.  Further, he said “The defendant does not proffer any evidence that the indictment was not properly returned, that anything improper occurred in the grand jury, or that he suffered any actual prejudice in the return of the indictment.”

A new defense being used in asbestos litigation is the genetic mutation called BAP1 which is said to raise the risk of a person developing mesothelioma from asbestos exposure. Dr. Michele Carbone at the University of Hawaii says that it can increase this risk and also can directly cause mesothelioma.  A research report on BAP1 came out in 2011, but reportedly only recently has the science come up in asbestos litigation.

On March 6, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of some 1,000 asbestos and silica plaintiffs seeking a constitutional challenge to a Texas law that allowed a MDL pre-trial court to disallow their claims because they lacked jurisdiction.  

Author Laura Nahmias provides an in-depth report on what is labelled a slush fund for state legislative leaders generated through the Health Care Reform Act. This fund was allegedly used by then Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver for channeling state money to the doctor who supplied asbestos clients to Silver's law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg. The fund reportedly has become the third highest tax the state levies if it were to be counted as a normal state tax.

Traditional legal theory such as what supports a summary judgment ruling can be thrown out the window in some asbestos litigation.

The New York City Asbestos Litigation court placed 108 cases on a extremis docket, for plaintiffs with extreme medical conditions, with almost half of those cases belonging to Weitz & Luxenberg.  

A federal judge in Louisiana found on February 25, 2015 that insufficient evidence cleared three auto manufacturers of liabilty for asbestos exposure of a plaintiff.  Reportedly, the descendant submitted no evidence to link them to the claimed exposure. Scott Laurent v. City of New Orleans, et al., No. 14-2022, E.D. La.; 2015 U.S. Dist.

New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) Judge Sherry Heitler -- who reinstituted punitive damages reportedly at the request of the Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos plaintiff firm with ties to Sheldon Silver -- is stepping down more than two months after her term expired. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Peter H. Moutlon will lead NYCAL. Heitler's court is being investigated for allegedly giving Silver's former law firm special treatment. In this court, dozens of asbestos lawsuits were filed by Weitz & Luxenberg, where Silver was ʺof counselʺ and received $5.3 million in what federal prosecutors say were kickbacks, and many of these cases tried before judges connected to Silver. Over the last four years, the firm made $273.5 million of the $313.5 million awarded by NYCAL juries in 15 mesothelioma verdicts. Courts spoikesman David Bookstaver denied the claims.

Judge Peter Moulton will succeed Chief Judge Sherry Heitler as the top judge in Manhattan presiding over the New York City Asbestos Litigation court. NYCAL has come under fire recently from its connections to Shelly Silver and the influence of Weitz & Luxenberg.

Tomas Stebbins criticizes New York's legal system on many fronts. Regarding asbestos, Stebbins notes, "Even in the specialty courts, the game is rigged in favor of the plaintiffs’ lawyers. As reported in The Post, the New York City Asbestos Litigation court is far out of line from the rest of the country — consolidating wildly dissimilar cases and handing down verdict awards that are over twice the national average. And the largest law firm practicing before that court is none other than Weitz and Luxenberg, the very firm that paid former Speaker Silver millions, according to the indictment. We need far greater transparency into the NYCAL.... Silver’s exit is a historic opportunity for reform. It’s time our elected officials — especially our new Assembly leadership — showed us that they work for the people, not the trial lawyers.

To show how Garlock's prior litigation history included inflated claims as asbestos plaintiff attorneys manipulated the system, the company produced evidence of past asbestos claims, including several involving Philadelphia's Shein Law Center. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges ultimately sided with Garlock's position that its liability going forward should not be based on the company's litigation history. The court records were recently unsealed after the seal was challenged by Legal Newsline and other entities. The record reveals that Benjamin Shein testified that his firm filed trust claims after llitigation was completed in order to keep other bankrupt companies' names off the verdict form.

A federal judge in southern Illinois dismissed a case against five companies saying the plaintff did not establish personal jurisdiction.

Former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's federal indictment includes grand jury charges of "Honest Services Mail Fraud," "Honest Services Wire Fraud," and "Extortion Under Color of Official Right."

West Virginia reform legislation that would bring more transparency and fairness to asbestos bankruptcy trust claims is being considered the the state's legislature in 2015. A legal reform group says that in addition to bringing transparency to the process, the reform bill will create clearer medical criteria for asbestos claimants.

Texas House asbestos and silica trust transparency bill, as introduced, by Rep. Doug Miller. The bill is designed to help stop "double dipping" fraud and abuse in asbestos and silica claims by personal injury lawyers.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LESTER BRICKMAN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW Hearing on H.R. 526: Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015, before the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Proffessor Brickman supports passaage of H.R. 526.  He states that while racketeering charges against double dipping and fraud in asbestos litigation and trust filings may help reduce the abusive acts by asbestos lawyers somewhat, H.R. 526 is needed to curb the "massive fraud that now permeates mesothelioma litigation."  

The NY Post reports that in NYCAL, asbestos firm Weitz & Luxenberg, the law firm where Silver was “of counsel,” gets “red-carpet treatment.” Chief asbestos judge Sherry Klein Heitler, at Weitz & Luxenberg’s request, reversed a 20-year rule barring punitive damages in asbestos cases, leading to bigger jury awards.  Also, Judge Joan Madden consolidated unrelated asbestos cases, which has created huge increases in jury awards.  In the last four years, Weitz & Luxenberg won $273.5 million of $313.5 million awarded by NYCAL juries in 15 mesothelioma verdicts.  The average award for an NYCAL asbestos case is said to be two to three times larger than those in other courts. In 2014 ATRA called the asbestos court the top “judicial hellhole” where plaintiffs’ lawyers are “brazenly favored by the judges.” Silver has been blocking tort-reform bills for decades in Albany.

The author examines "any exposure" theory in asbestos litigation, reviews a number of studies and measures, and concludes that determination of risk is the key factor -- if risk is small then exposure should not be determined to be causitive. Low dose studies should be questioned in court regarding their reliability and prood of causation.

Columnist Joe Nocera describes the circle of influence and corruption with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver taking money from asbestos law firm Weitz & Luxenberg, referring clients to them through a doctor Silver sent a half million dollars in state grants to, got a job for the doctor’s son, and sent a state grant to the doctor’s wife’s charity.  Silver names partner Luxenberg to a committee that nominates state judges – and shortly thereafter a new asbestos court judge is appointed who reinstates punitive damages in asbestos cases, raising the award amounts significantly.  Lawyers say Weitz & Luxenberg dominates the asbestos cases and receives preferential treatment in the NYC asbestos court.

The Sheldon Silver scandal and connection to asbestos plaintiff firm Weitz & Luxenberg highlights the intense competition for clients that causes millions in monthly asbestos ad spending. The prominent competition for asbestos clients is seen in TV ads across the country and throughout the day and night.Silverstein reports that while drug and device injury ads declined in December 2015 mesothelioma injury ads werre up 15 percent. Asbestos injury ad spending was higher than injury advertising on the top 11 drugs targeted by plaintiff lawyers. In December the asbestos ad spend totalled nearly $5 million for 6500 TV ads!  

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015, as introduced by Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX-27) on 1/26/2015.

The timeline of alleged payoffs involving New York State Assembly Speaker Silver's role in an asbestos litigation scheme involving referrals, kickbacks, a major New York law firm and Dr. Robert Taub. Diagrams of alleged corruption are provided.

At the center of the Sheldon Silver indictment is the plaintiffs law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg. The firm paid Speaker Silver over $5.3 million in referral fees, despite his never having performed any asbestos legal work, according to prosecutors. The scandal is also raising suspicion around large sums of money donated by the law firm to Democratic candidates in New York and nationwide.

Charges filed against former NY Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver by the U.S. Attorney's Office  for the Southen District of New York.

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd.. Amendment to 18 Sealed Response to Motion

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC et al v. Waters & Kraus, LLP et al 14-cv-00130-FDW (District Court W.D.NC) MOTION /Garlock's Motion for Order Concerning Redacted Documents by Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd.. Responses due by 2/2/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cassada, Garland) (Entered: 01/16/2015)

Developments in the Garlock Sealing Technologies case in a federal bankruptcy court suggests asbestos fraud related to litigation and trusts has reached new levels and should be reformed, according to the Wall Street Journal editorial.

The American Tort Reform Foundation's Judicial Hellholes Report includes a focus on the New York City asbestos litigation (NYCAL) docket, which has been transformed from a challenging jurisdiction for defendants to a patently unfair one, in part due to the decision to reintroduce punitive damages in NYCAL litigation.  Other Judicial Hellholes for 2014-2015 are: California, West Virginia Supreme, Court of Appeals, Florida Supreme Court, Madison County, Illinois, Missouri Supreme Court, and Louisiana.  Several continue to be or have become "hotbeds of asbestos litigation, even though the U.S. has passed its epidemiological peak for mesothelioma, and even as civil courts and lawmakers in much of the rest of the country grow increasingly skeptical of a lawsuit industry that relentlessly generates new claims in Judicial Hellholes and elsewhere. This skepticism is being fueled by mounting evidence of manipulation and even outright fraud."  

Newport News Virginia is using maritime law to work around business-friendly state laws and even higher-court judicial decisions. The American Tort Reform Foundation states that "…asbestos defendants that take their cases to trial are more likely to lose in Newport News than in any other jursidiction in the nation...." 

An asbestos case in West Virgina vindicates CSX's strategy of using the federal anti-racketeering statute as a weapon to combat corrupt plaintiffs' attorneys. Combined with the company's legal fees, the total judgment against the trial lawyers and doctor came to $7.3 million. The defendants decided to appeal, but before the appellate court issued a ruling, they filed papers dropping their appeal.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND REPORT OF MANVILLE PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

Madison Country candidates are being bankrolled by campaign contributions from some of Illinois biggest asbestos attorneys. For example Democratic candidate for Madison County Treasurer Marleen Suarez has received more than half her individual contributions has come from the asbestos bar.  

Second Amended UNR Asbestos-Disease Claims Resolution Procedures

Asbestos litigation is growing in St. Louis City courts, attorneys Lindsay Dibler and Melissa Crowe Schopferat said at a 2014 conference. The cases have quadrupled in the last four years. The St. Louis court is more strict than courts in Madison County, Illinois.  

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the medical doctor testifying in a former smoker's asbestos case must be the treating physician and must indicate that the smoking habit, alone, is insufficient to cause an asbestos-related disease. This reversed a lower court ruling in the Renfrow v Norfolk Southern case. The doctor retained was not a proper ʺcompetent medical authorityʺ under Ohio law, the higher court ruled.

Plaintiffs attorneys in the Garlock Sealing Technologies case advocated for federal Judge George Hodges to assess Garlock's asbestos liability at approximately $1.3 billion  while Garlock estimates its liability is closer to $125 million. The plaintiffs attorneys argued that the information Garlock rooted out about their claims ought to remain confidential, and at that time Judge Hodges agreed.

This litigation report asserts that the impact of the Garlock decision,which found that the withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock, is proof that transparency is essential to the litigation and without transparency a case cannot be properly adjudicated or resolved.

In the bankruptcy hearings of Garlock Sealing Technologies, the company seeks to show how some plaintiff lawyers may have accused multiple firms of single-handedly causing victims' cancer.

Transcript for Garlock Bankruptcy Hearing/Trial held on 06/12/14. HEARING ON [3590] DEBTORS' MOTION FOR ORDER (A) ESTABLISHING A BAR DATE FOR FILING SETTLED GST ASBESTOS CLAIMS, (B) APPROVING THE PROOF OF CLAIM FORM AND (C) APPROVING THE FORM OF AND PROCEDURES FOR NOTICE TO SETTLED GST ASBESTOS CLAIMS' [3667] RESPONSE BY FUTURE ASBESTOS CLAIMANTS' REPRESENTATIVES; [3670] COMMITTEE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S 5/6/14 ORDER GRANTING FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO RULE 2019 FILINGS AND ALL JOINDERS TO THAT MOTION; [3618] ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY; AND [3720] JOINT OBJECTION BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND THE MOVANTS BEFORE THE HONORABLE GEORGE R. HODGES,

Plaintiffs being advised by their attorney in their asbestos litigation and trust claim filings to manipulate facts may find themselves facing perjury claims. Author calls on Democrats to bring oversight to protect persons injured by asbestos.

Following Judge George Hodges' ruling in the Garlock bankruptcy case that plaintiffs' lawyers had abused the system by tinkering with evidence and filing misleading statements, what effect will the court decision will have on claimants? Who is looking out for the claimants who played by the rules?  

Sheldon Silver faces fines of up to $120,000 for not properly reporting his finances over a several year period, according to a New York state watchdog group, the Joint Committee on Public Ethics.

Federal bankruptcy judge George Hodges determines that the plaintiffs' lawyers  in the Garlock Sealing Technologies case failed to disclose in court that their client had been exposed to 22 other asbestos products. The Journal editorial notes that Judge Hodges helped expose just how rotten the system is.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George R. Hodges noted there was a “pattern of misrepresentation” by asbestos plaintiffs’ attorneys suing Garlock Sealing Technologies. Garlock’s asbestos liability was determined by the judge to be $125 million, not the approximately $1.2 billion asked for by plaintiff lawyers.

ATRA Judicial Hellholes report calls out the North Carolina ruling by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges reducing asbestos defendant Garlock's liability by 90 percent. Judge Hodges determined that the larger amount requested by plaintiffs' committee had been based on fraudulent claims. The defendant Garlock has now filed fraud claims against them.  

Judge George Hodges' ruling provides good ammunition for civil fraud and racketerring lawsuits. The act of corporate defendants like Garlock going after plaintiffs' lawyers by filing fraud allegations against them is becoming more common. Judicial decisions such as Hodge's can only lead to broader use of the strategy.

U.S. bankruptcy Judge George Hodges determined that the reasonable and reliable estimate of Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC’s liability for present and future mesothelioma claims is $125 million a far different number from the plaintiff lawyers' request in the neighborhood of $1 billion. Judge Hodges determined that the evidence based on a review of past litigation meant that plaintiff lawyers had led Garlock to vastly overestimate its liability due to manipulation of evidence.

In the Garlock bankruptcy case, Judge George Hodges greatly reduced the amount the company needs to put in trust. The judge cited widespread inflated claims against the company and the plaintiff lawyers withholding evidence that their clients were exposed to other sources of asbestos.  

The authors update their 2008 publication, The Need for Transparency Between the Tort System and Section 524(g) Asbestos Trusts, with their assessment of asbestos trusts and their relationship with asbestos litigation. Also discussed is the need for trust transparency and the role of state laws concerning the allocation of fault.

Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York spokesperson Phoebe Stonbely discusses the group's pick for most ridiculous lawsuit of November 2013: Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy's lawsuit naming 70 companies alleging they caused her lung cancer from asbestos exposure. McCarthy at the time was 69 years old, and she admitted smoking for most of her life. Sheldon Silver's former firm, Weitz & Luxenberg, filed the suit.

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2013 was introduced by Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX-27)  on 3/6/2013 and passed the House on 11/13/2013

FURTHERING ASBESTOS CLAIM TRANSPARENCY (FACT) ACT OF 2013 Part 2  

House Report 113-254 - FURTHERING ASBESTOS CLAIM TRANSPARENCY (FACT) ACT OF 2013 (Part 1)  

Plibrico 524(g) Asbestos Trust Second Amended And Restated Asbestos Trust Distribution Procedures

Testimony before the Task Force on Asbestos Litigation and Bankruptcy Trusts of the ABA's Tort Trial and Insurance Section on the importance of trust transparency and a recommendation that the Task Force adopt trust transparency requirements that compel the filing and disclosure of asbestos bankruptcy trust claims before trial.

An act relating to personal injury trusts; defining terms; requiring disclosure ; establishing presumption; prohibiting claims of privilege; authorizing discovery; prohibiting scheduling of trial within specified time period; requiring stay under circumstances; authorizing motion by defendant; establishing procedures upon identification of certain trust; requiring court to make determination; requiring court to order filing of claim; requiring documents to be entered into record; establishing rebuttable presumption; requiring certain valuation; authorizing credits; and providing for sanctions.

Plaintiff attorney Peter Angelos requests of the Baltimore City Circuit Court to consolidate 13,000 of his asbestos claims into a single suit. The move adds urgency to passing reform legislation to bring transparency to trust claims and litigation, such as the House FACT Act.  

Dr. Charles E. Bates, Chair of the Bates & White LLC economic consulting firm, analyzes the asbestos liabilities of Garlock and finds that the company has overpaid in settlements in prior litigation where its liability was actually less than had been portrayed.  Bates estimates the company's liabilities going forward will be less than $125 million.

Seventh amended trust distribution procedures for DII Industries, LLC

The law review article examines the bankruptcy trust system as part of the overall framework for asbestos personal injury compensation. Professor Brown concludes that trust administrators set their standards for qualifying claimants low and as a result trusts are being depleted. Enhanced oversight of trusts and reducing the gamesmanship may servie society well.  

A bill to enact sections 2307.951, 2307.952, 2307.953, and 12307.954 of the Revised Code to require claimants in asbestos tort actions to make certain disclosures pertaining to asbestos trust claims that have been submitted to asbestos trust entities for the purpose of compensating the claimant for asbestos exposure.

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2012 is a bill that sought to amend federal bankruptcy law concerning asbestoes trusts that would improve transparency and oversight to the process. The bill would require such trusts to file with the bankruptcy court quarterly reports, available on the public docket, which describe each demand the trust has received from a claimant and the basis for any payment made to that claimant. The Committee on the Judiciary recommended that the FACT Act pass.  

Statement of Marc Scarcella Economic Consultant, Environmental and Product Liability Practice, Bates White, LLC, before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law  on May 10, 2012.  In his testimony Scarcella calls for more transparency in asbestos trust transactions.

The GAO was asked to examine asbestos trusts set up pursuant to Section 524(g). The report addresses how much asbestos trusts have paid in claims and how trusts are administered; how trust claim and payment information is made available to outside parties and stakeholder views on wehther more trust and claimant info should be made available to outside parties.  

Congoleum Plan Trust

Plaintiff lawyers controlling the T H Agriculture & Nutrition (THAN) bankruptcy trust formation made sure their clients were paid at 100 percent of claim value but that led to inequitable payments for future claimants, violating the U.S. bankruptcy code, the authors say.

First Amended And Restated United States Mineral Products Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust Distribution Procedures

C. E. Thurston & Sons Asbestos Trust    

This report details the overall costs of asbestos litigation, including pointing out that over half the direct losses from asbestos claims has gone to lawyers. It also notes systemic problems of "the longest running bonanza" for asbestos plaintiff lawyers. Asbestos litigation is described as costly, inefficient, and unfair to defendants as well as legitimate claimants.

This detailed study looks at the asbestos litigation system and how it has been performing, using data up to 2004. The report looks at injury claimants, defendants, lawyers and judges in the process.

Asbestos Claims Resolution Procedures

First Amended A-Best Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust Distribution Procedures  

Second Amended Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust Distribution Procedures

First Amended Keene Asbestos Related Personal Injury Claims Resolution And Distribution Procedures

Eighth Amended Claims Resolution Procedures NGC Bodily Injury Trust

Third Amendment To And Complete Restatement Of Thorpe Insulation Company Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust Distribution Procedures