A bill that benefits defendants of asbestos, but at night asbestos claimants, passed the US House by grandstanding and rhetoric.
Wednesday night, the House of Representatives passed the continuing asbestos Transparency Act (FACT) (HR 982) Claims. The bill aims to improve the transparency of the claim by requiring asbestos bankruptcy trusts to disclose information on the claims.
But the purpose of the bill, efforts to adopt, and the consequences it will have for the victims of asbestos are anything but transparent.
Bill successfully reintroduced earlier this year
FACT Act was introduced in the Judicial Committee of the House in 2012 by five bipartisan co-sponsors. The Committee held hearings but never H. R. 4369
reached the House floor for a vote. A version of the bill (S. 3076) has also been introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee that year, but the committee
never acted on the bill.
The measure has received criticism from defenders of asbestos victims, trust administrators and some lawmakers. Supporters of the law justified the bill by
alleging fraud endemic provider in the assets of the trust compromised the asbestos bankruptcy trust system. However, they failed to present evidence of
widespread fraud. As Congressman Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., And other critics noted, the bill appeared to be "a solution looking for a problem."
However, lack of evidence n has not prevented the fACT Act of re-emerging again earlier this year. in fact, the judicial Committee of the House wasted no time voting on
far. in their haste, the leadership committee failed to act on the assurance that the defenders of asbestos victims would have a
opportunity to testify publicly before a final vote.
the finally adopted draft law 17-14 Committee, paving the way for a vote on the house floor. on Wednesday, the house approved the measure by a vote of
221-199, divided largely along party lines.
grandstanding lawyers Tort Reform
It appeared that the sequestration of this year's budget, government shutdown and current controversies regarding the affordable health care Act could derail any
further progress for the FACT Act for at least this year. Although voting left Wednesday asbestos victim advocates extremely disappointed, they are not
exactly taken aback by the results.
grandstanding and a relentless propaganda campaign by tort reform advocates were indications of the FACT Act remain viable legislative threat. Although the FACT Act
supporters could do nothing to strengthen the legislative record and justify the bill, they did launch a media campaign highlighting individual cases of allegations
fraud. This included a pro-tort reform efforts new Legal Newsline out to convince a court to grant access to confidential documents in the recent Garlock bankruptcy proceedings. This effort
failed in court because he had little merit, but he managed to generate more titles, suggesting that a question of transparency of confidence exists.
As recently as two days before the House vote in favor of HR 982, The Hill published an article contributed by Lisa Rickard, president of the US Chamber
Institute for Legal Reform . Rickard praised the FACT Act as a measure of the victim friendly to protect the assets in trust for future victims. The Hill
has a cover lobbying and political campaigns, and is popular among busy members of Congress and their staff. So popular that it would not be
surprising that the number of members and staff, who had seen the story of Rickard Wednesday afternoon, exceeded the number who had actually read and
studied HR 982 .
the day before the House vote, the United States Chamber of commerce issued a letter to members of the House asking them to support HR 982. the House is "
most world business organization "representing the interests of millions of businesses. the letter mentions the need to protect the assets of the trust, and also said
the" FACT Act would also ensure that the thousands of small , medium and large businesses currently plagued by asbestos litigation are not unfairly
victimized by the plaintiffs' lawyers. "He also warned member that their vote" may be included "in its annual report" how they voted " dashboard. Business
leaders can use this score to help guide their political contributions.
The claim that the FACT Act would protect the trust property was also used to promote the versions of the bill at the state level. Indeed, the
rhetoric was repeated on the House floor Wednesday.
Tort Reform Package Strategically Introduced on House Floor
Thanks to a resolution (H. Res. 403) reported on the Rules Committee of the House earlier this week, HR 982 was combined with other measures to reform the civil liability for
introduction on the floor of the house. The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2013 (HR 2655) to remove existing limitations on the ability to penalize loss seekers.
Member of the Rules Committee Rob Woodall, R-Ga., Introduced HR 2655 and HR 982 in tandem on the floor House. This strategy is no doubt caught the attention of
all legislators who are not familiar with the part of the Code that establishes bankruptcy trusts, but broadly support the reform of civil liability.
Rep. Woodall opened with praise for the way the Rules Committee engaged in a process "transparent" to bring these bills to the floor of the house, describing HR
in 2655 as a measure to protect small businesses "frivolous lawsuits" and HR 982 as a measure to protect victims of asbestos fraudulent trust
applicants. He said H.R. 982 was part of the "obligation of stewardship" of the Congress to help trusts to manage their assets.
The resolution was allocated one hour of debate, and both bills received an additional hour of debate. But the dissenting members of the judiciary
Report of the Committee, and the discussions that followed the remarks of Rep. Woodall, legislators opposed to the FACT Act not only highlighted gaps in the legislative record
, but also exposed the lack of transparency in the grounds of the invoice. According to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., And others, Bill
unnecessary and "shabby".
Specifically, opponents noted the lack of empirical evidence of widespread fraud to justify the obligation is called stewardship. Rather than protecting
trust property, the bill would trust wasting their resources on reports of production requirements for both asbestos accused of helping circumvent
the process of discovery and compensation delay to die applicants.
"victimization" of people injured by asbestos
Perhaps the most severe criticisms by the FACT Act opponents focused on how the bill endangers life private Trust of applicants. According to Rep. Alcee
Hastings, D-Fla., And other lawmakers, the FACT Act "revictimizes" asbestos victims.
H.R. 982 would require trusts to asbestos trusts established under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code to file quarterly reports with the bankruptcy court.
The reports would list each submission by an asbestos claimant, the basis for the claims, and the last four digits of the applicant's social security
number. The FACT Act would also require these reports provide information on claims and payments involving trusts continued asbestos claimants.
But there is simply no transparency valid concern to justify the FACT Act. The courts already have rules on how responsibility is shared between all parties
responsible for asbestos injury of one applicant. accused of asbestos can get claims and payment information through the discovery process.
There are severe penalties for lawyers and applicants who do not comply or violate the rules of discovery otherwise.
However, there are serious concerns that, if the FACT improves transparency for all, it is those who victimize more asbestos claimants. Asbestos
The exposure history of applicants and health status would essentially public information if the FACT Act was passed. Employers, lenders, insurers and
identity thieves can access quarterly reports by paying a nominal fee for access to online registers bankruptcy hearing. The information obtained from reports
under the FACT Act could be used to discriminate against applicants seeking employment, credit or insurance.
The House on Wednesday also examined four proposed amendments to the bill to protect public safety and reducing the burden of the FACT Act
privacy trusts and threats seekers. The amendments would:
- exempt trusts anti-fraud procedures from the disclosure requirements of the FACT Act
- require that any accused asbestos seeking payment information confidence disclose relevant information to protect public health. and security.
- Require that asbestos defendants seeking confidence payment details provide information, to the exclusion of their trade secrets, which identifies and discloses the locations of their products and sites containing asbestos.
- exempt veterans and US members of the Armed Forces of the Bill disclosure requirements and ensure that their asbestos claims are paid before death.
Interestingly, legislators who believed stewards seeking to protect future victims of asbestos defeated each amendment.
[lesvictimesIgnored asbestos and disappointed
also interesting was the inability of the FACT Act advocates cite the support of the people they claim to be interesting in the protection that victims of 'asbestos. Bill
not only failed followers to seriously consider the victims of asbestos concerns about privacy and late payments, but they also misinterpreted asbestos
victims of entry into the law Project.
As Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., Said all main victims rights groups who are interested in preserving the trust property for future applicants
oppose the FACT Act. He also criticized the Committee to refuse victim advocates another opportunity to testify before voting on the bill. But Rep.
Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., Blurred the record suggesting that the victims do not take the opportunity to express their views.
After the vote defenders, Wednesday's asbestos victim, who continue to work tirelessly to overcome the FACT Act, a clear record of their discontent
on House approval of this bill.
Susan Vento, Rep widow. . Bruce Vento, D-Minn, and fervent opponent FACT Act, made the following statement:
"I am deeply disappointed by the vote, but grateful to members of Congress who stood up for victims asbestos and their families in the opponent legislation
hurts the victims cancer. We will continue to oppose this legislation and ensure that it becomes law. "
Judy Van Ness , widow of the veteran of the Navy Richard L. Van Ness and another lawyer "victims of the leading asbestos, commented on the fact of threats to his law privacy
applicants
"Congress today forced asbestos victims and their families to communicate private information which puts them at risk of identity theft. This delay and
could refuse compensation necessary evil to the victims and their families ".
Missed Opportunity to Stand for asbestos victims
The FACT Act offers no significant improvement in the confidence of transparency. But Wednesday's vote is certainly a missed opportunity for the House to support
asbestos victims.
There are only a few weeks before the end of a legislative session already tainted by a government shutdown that sparked public disapproval large scale. Use
as the time to give serious and careful long awaited a question that has victimized innocent Americans for decades could have redeemed legislators, at least
in the eyes of advocates for asbestos victims.
But apparently, legislators were not interested in the acquisition. Rather than seriously consider how to help victims of asbestos, they adopted a bill useless
based on rhetoric, not facts.
Testimony and debate of the FACT Act would have included a thoughtful analysis of the existing trust responsibility and bankruptcy protections available under
systems both litigation liability and bankruptcy. But instead, the statements of both sides of the aisle have been lingering bitterness sprinkled on
shutdown, Affordable Care Act and rhetoric on allegations of fraud. None of them had anything to do with helping the victims of asbestos.
Rep. Theodore Deutch, D-Fla., May have summarized the failure of the best House. According himself
"If anything, [Congress] should look at ways to make it easier to identify the victims of asbestos legitimate and fast track their cases. Instead we
to do the opposite. This bill might as well have been written by the asbestos industry because it provides these companies with new tools
escape justice and responsibility to the victims. "
Fortunately, it's not too late. The FACT Act still requires Senate and presidential approval to become law. On Tuesday, the White House released a
position statement opposing the FACT Act.
