We've previously noted the extent of the problem of asbestos bankruptcy trusts being used as trial-lawyer piggy banks to fund litigation against third parties on legal and fact theories different than those used to obtain recovery from the trusts. The May 10 hearing on the subject created some fireworks when Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen called chicken-catcher attorneys who contacted him about a potential case "parasites." [LNL; ILR; Professor Todd Brown testimony; more from ILR; unpersuasive SE Texas Record editorial]
House Judiciary passes asbestos trust reform
Related Entries:
- Garlock Ruling a Blow for Double Dippers
- FACT Act Update: House Passes Asbestos Transparency Bill
- Forsaking the FACT Act: The Moral Bankruptcy of the Asbestos Industry
- Checking the facts on the FACT Act
- House Judiciary establishes bipartisan task force to take on overcriminalization
- RICO jury verdict on fraudulent asbestos claims
- The Lawyer as Racketeer
- Copland on magnet courts
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivers significant asbestos ruling
- Medical malpractice reform in New Hampshire
- $48 million jackpot justice asbestos award for 86-year-old
- House hearing on class actions
- Post-tort-reform Texas doctor supply
- Making the case for federal tort reform
Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.