Wall Street Journal is continuing its practice of spreading asbestos trust fraud propaganda
in its recent piece, “
Exposing Asbestos Fraud.” The piece alleges that the judiciary is standing in the way of
justice and that a judge ruling against a corporation while keeping the
proceedings closed to the public is proof that there is fraud occurring
in the asbestos trust system.
WSJ claims that North Carolina Federal Judge George Hodges is being “pushed”
by plaintiffs’ attorneys to force Garlock Sealing Technologies to
deposit an additional $1.3 billion into a bankruptcy trust for future
asbestos claims, while Garlock feels that the $125 million trust they
were forced to set up in 2010, after filing for bankruptcy in an attempt
to secure immunity from lawsuits filed by persons injured by its asbestos
products, should be more than enough to suffice.
WSJ asserts that plaintiffs’ attorneys filing claims with multiple bankruptcy
trusts while pursuing others in court is a
WSJ, asbestos manufacturers and industry-backed government representatives
like to call this practice “double-dipping.” Asbestos manufacturers
feel that even if a plaintiff was exposed to asbestos through use of their
products, if they were also exposed through use of another manufacturer’s
product, they should only receive compensation for their deadly disease
from one. This is not a scam, and there is nothing fraudulent about it,
the majority of people who suffer from asbestos related disease were exposed
to a wide variety of asbestos products from different manufacturers which
ultimately caused their disease.
Lest we forget, the companies who manufactured and sold asbestos containing
products up into the 1970s and 1980s knew for decades the harm caused
by asbestos and kept it hidden, paying “scientists” and “industrial
experts” to create false scientific articles, reports and evidence
that asbestos was safe. Very much like what the Canadian government and
asbestos industry were doing up into 2012, while Russia and other countries
with thriving asbestos industries continue this practice today.
WSJ also criticizes Judge Hodges for closing his courtroom to the public during
WSJ and the industry would have you believe that keeping settlement information
between different defendants confidential is deceitful. The truth is that
settlements are the result of defendants deciding that the risk of going
to trial before jury is too high, and it would be more beneficial for
them to settle outside of court.
WSJ has previously expressed ardent support of the deceitfully clever bill
known as the
Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, the FACT Act, which would require asbestos trusts to file quarterly reports disclosing
personal settlement information on claimants in an attempt to limit the
payouts of other defendants, who are also found liable for causing a victim’s exposure.
WSJreported on rampant fraud occurring in the trust system, the sponsors of
the bill even quoted
WSJ’s “investigative reporting” as evidence at the bill’s
hearing, but as we discussed
here, both parties failed to present any actual evidence of fraud.
WSJ continues to claim that fraud is occurring in the trust system but still
offers no actual evidence. They state that Garlock was forced into bankruptcy
because of fraudulent claims, again with no evidentiary support. If Garlock
was forced into bankrupty, it was due to being tried and found guilty
for causing harm to thousands of people in court systems all over the
country. WSJ also alleges that Judge Hodges’ ruling against Garlock
must be wrong simply because they are not privy to the transcripts. WSJ
seems to believe that they should be able rule over these cases, and it’s
a good thing they do not, as they have made it clear who they think the
real victims are.