The controversy over the release of asbestos trust claims continues bankruptcy. As we previously reported, a handful of states have taken similar legislation to the prosecution claim asbestos Transparency Act (FACT) In recent weeks, efforts to adopt legislation requiring disclosure took confidence momentum in state legislatures and federal.
, which was presented to the House of Representatives in 2012. The bill would require quarterly reports on the claims trusts asbestos.
the federal measure was finally reported to the Judicial Committee of the House, but never reached a vote on the House floor before the end of the legislative session. A draft accompanying law (S. 3076) was introduced in the Senate, but never did the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Despite the limited action during the 112th Congress, efforts to disclose more information about the claim of confidence are certainly alive. In March, lawmakers reinstated federal law 113th Congress as the FACT Act of 2013 (H.R. 982). At the state level, the Assembly of the State of Wisconsin presented and adopted its own measure to require information about the trust allegations.
FACT Act Developments
HR 982 essentially revives the draft law of 2012. It would amend the US Bankruptcy Code to require asbestos bankruptcy trusts to file quarterly reports detailing trust claims with the bankruptcy court. Reports should include the name and historical exhibition of the applicant, and the basis of any payment made by the trust to the applicant. The bill states that the confidential medical records and complete Social Security numbers should not be included in the reports.
In addition to file quarterly reports, trusts would also be required to respond to written requests for asbestos litigation defendants for "any information" related to payments and payment requests trusts. The bill would give trusts the ability to request reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred while respecting this disclosure requirement.
So far, lawmakers have not set up a project to support legislation in the Senate.
The Subcommittee Judicial Chamber Committee on Regulatory Reform, Antitrust and Trade Law held a hearing on HR 982 shortly after its introduction. Testimony was similar to that given during the hearings last year on transparency asbestos trust. The testimony in support of the bill went on to suggest that the approval procedures are lax and could unfairly compensate fraudulent or low demand. Testimony critical of the bill argued that there is little support for the allegations of breach of trust and there is already an appropriate amount of confidence disclosure.
Unfortunately, asbestos victims were once again absent from the initial control group. Therefore Deputy Chairman Spencer Baucus has delayed a vote on the bill during its markup subcommittee. But asbestos victims and advocates of victims were naturally disappointed when they were only asked to provide a written statement and additional entrance off the record, behind closed doors. The campaign against asbestos cancer victims with documented rights disapproval in a letter in April to the President who also invited to give victims the opportunity to testify publicly.
Momentum Nationwide Trust disclosures
Asbestos tort reform advocates, however, has not had the same trouble getting the attention of legislators at the state or federal. The so-called asbestos law on transparency of confidence has emerged across the country. This bill seems to be from the same source :. Supporters of tort reform
In particular, some promoters of the FACT Act proposed in 2013 and its predecessor are from states that have been homes for tort reform efforts, including Texas and Florida. At one point, they led the nation in pending cases of asbestos. They later became the leaders of the reform of litigation asbestos. Some of the reforms have benefited asbestos victims by processing priorities for the toughest applications. But others (eg laws on successor liability) were mainly intended to provide legal protections for companies facing asbestos liabilities.
These types of laws on the reform of civil liability are often replicated in several states and based reform model legislation on civil liability lawyers such as Exchange American Legislative Council (ALEC) and the House US commerce Institute for legal reform. The groups exist to advance various business interests. They have also been linked to the proposed FACT Act and legislation on the transparency of the asbestos trust that has arisen in several states, including Ohio. This state passed legislation on transparency in December 2012.
More recently, lawmakers of Wisconsin examined the legislation on transparency of confidence. On Wednesday, the National Assembly adopted Bill 19 Assembly by a vote of 58-39. The measure would require asbestos litigation claimants to identify all applications for trust they have taken or intend to take in the future. Applicants should also provide documents relating to their requests Trust. The court would stay the case of an applicant until he received "the final executed evidence" of any claim of trust.
If a defendant believes the plaintiff has a claim against a blind trust name, the court would have the power to order the applicant to file a claim with such confidence. If an accused is ultimately found liable, the amount of any compensation would be reduced by the amount of the applicant's trust receives compensation for similar injury.
a version of the bill was also presented at the Wisconsin State Senate. a public hearing was held in April, but no further action has been taken to date. Similar measures have also been introduced in Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia.
