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:
- House hearing on class actions
- Post-tort-reform Texas doctor supply
- Making the case for federal tort reform
- Judge orders end to trial reservation system in Madison County asbestos docket
- California rejects tertiary asbestos liability in O'Neill v. Crane
- Madison County's controversial asbestos litigation system under fire yet again
- New Podcast: James Copland and Timothy O'Toole discuss overcriminalization concerns raised by the 'Clean Up Government Act'
- Around the web, December 15
- 'Clean Up Government Act' sparks overcriminalization concerns
- Marie Gryphon cited for work on loser pays
- New Featured Discussion: MI and Cato scholars debate med-mal
- Kentucky AG Sued Over Contingency-Fee Arrangement With Private Outside Counsel
- "State Court Challenges to Legislatively Enacted Tort Reforms"
- Around the web, September 27
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |




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.