The Pros and Cons of an Asbestos Bill

Your June 20 editorial “One-Sided Bill on Asbestos Injuries,” arguing that Congress shouldn’t pass the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act until significant fraud in the asbestos bankruptcy claims process is detailed, is misguided.

It’s already clear that there’s fraudulent activity within the asbestos trust system. The House Judiciary Committee has held three hearings, which revealed an opaque asbestos trust system constructed largely by plaintiffs’ firms that benefit from payments to asbestos claimants. They also revealed concrete examples of plaintiffs’ filing conflicting claims among separate asbestos bankruptcy trusts and state courts.

Additionally, the Government Accountability Office has issued a report on asbestos trusts that found current disclosures wouldn’t reveal conflicting claims filed by plaintiffs against each of the asbestos trusts.

Rather than wait and spend additional taxpayer money to further detail a problem we already know exists, we choose to act now to protect asbestos victims.

BOB GOODLATTE
BLAKE FARENTHOLD
Washington, June 24, 2013

Mr. Goodlatte, a Republican from Virginia, is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Farenthold, a Republican from Texas, is the sponsor of the FACT Act.

To the Editor:

Bravo to The Times for unmasking the asbestos industry’s federal bill to limit payments owed to desperately sick workers and veterans by asbestos company trusts created to compensate workers they poisoned.

Thousands die annually; 30 percent are veterans. Every payment delayed is money in the bank for the companies. The legislation requires the trusts to respond to asbestos company demands at any time to reveal publicly a recipient’s personal claim information, including the last four Social Security digits, plus financial and family information, that could result in identity theft and criminal mischief.

Invasions of privacy are deeply resented, as reactions to revelations about huge government databases recording our phone calls and e-mails attest. This legislation, supported by Georgia Pacific and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is a special interest deal that should be tossed out.

JOAN CLAYBROOK
President Emeritus, Public Citizen
Washington, June 23, 2013

To the Editor:

There is plain evidence that fraud and abuse already exist in the trusts set up by companies to pay asbestos claims.

A 2012 House Judiciary Committee report detailed highly questionable claims, citing numerous examples. In March, The Wall Street Journal chronicled thousands of highly questionable trust claims in a major front-page article.

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act simply requires the trusts to make public information that they already collect about who has made claims against what trusts. And we believe that it places zero burden on claimants.

Most asbestos trusts have recently lowered their payouts to claimants because they are running out of money because of increased claims. Those who are indeed pro-claimant should support legislation that will ensure money for legitimate future claimants. Those defending the status quo are really supporting the current cash machine system that primarily enriches plaintiffs’ lawyers.

LISA A. RICKARD
President, Institute for Legal Reform
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Washington, June 20, 2013

View the original article here