Asbestos Escape Routes in Jeopardy?
During the 20th century, a handful of multinational conglomerates controlled global asbestos production, processing, marketing and sales. Prodigious efforts were made by these corporations to manipulate the information flow, influence national governments and skew “scientific” research. For decades, the industry’s dominance of the asbestos agenda enabled it to off-load liabilities onto individuals, communities and governments. The price paid by the injured was horrific and the economic costs incurred were colossal.
Over time, legal breakthroughs were achieved to hold individual companies to account. Once the first claims succeeded, many others followed. As more and more hurdles were overcome, corporate advisors pioneered additional legal and financial loopholes to escape and/or curtail asbestos liabilities.1
Examples from two jurisdictions show the evolution of strategies used over recent decades. From the 1980s, US defendants sought refuge from personal injury asbestos lawsuits under Chapter 11 bankruptcy provisions: UNR Industries, Inc. (1982), Johns Manville (1982), Amatex Corporation (1982), Waterman Steamship Corporation (1983), Wallace & Gale Company (1984), Nicolet Industries (1987).2 In the UK, Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd. declared insolvency in 2001,3 T&N, Ltd. went into administration in 20014 and Cape plc followed suit with a scheme of arrangement some time later. These machinations enabled corporate wizards to preserve financial assets at the same time as paying claimants just a proportion of what they were entitled to. The asbestos trusts and schemes have another huge benefit for defendant companies; forcing the injured to jump through bureaucratic hoops, avoids the likelihood of adverse publicity from contested cases. No media blowback, no impact on corporate reputations, no share price volatility.
There are, however, no guarantees in life or on the stock market. Cape plc, once Britain’s largest asbestos manufacturer and now part of a European conglomerate, has recently been publicly shamed by a Parliamentary Group. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Occupational Safety and Health called on the UK Government to withhold future contracts from Cape’s current owner – the French Altrad Group – until a one-off lump sum donation of £10 million (US$13.5m) is provided for research into asbestos cancer. The APPG’s recommendation was made in support of a long-running campaign – “Cape Must Pay” – by a national umbrella group representing victims – The Asbestos Victim Support Group Forum (UK) – which argued that the payment of this sum was appropriate due to the company’s suppression of adverse information on the asbestos hazard, withholding of damning workplace data and sustained efforts to undermine the implementation of health and safety regulations.5
Commenting on the publication of the 18-page report The Legacy of Cape Plc and the case for justice by the APPG, its Chair Labor MP Ian Lavery said:
“Cape’s deadly legacy has destroyed thousands of lives, and the company has yet to show real accountability. As the parent company, Altrad now carries that responsibility – and the government must stop turning a blind eye. It is completely unacceptable that Altrad continues to receive public contracts while failing to address the devastation caused by Cape’s asbestos products. The government must act now: no more contracts, no more excuses, until a meaningful contribution is made to mesothelioma research.”6
 Launch of the publication The Legacy of Cape Plc and the case for justice on July 1, 2025 in the House of Commons. Picture courtesy of Geraldine Coombs (Enlarge image). |
Altrad, which was named earlier this year as a recipient of “The Devil’s Dust Award,”7 due to its intransigence on this issue did not react well to the MPs’ call to exclude the company from public contracts with an Altrad spokesperson saying:
“We are deeply disappointed by the APPG’s recommendation, which amounts to nothing less than coercion under the guise of public health advocacy. The suggestion that government contracts should be withheld unless a private company makes a specific financial donation – outside of any legal or regulatory framework, or indeed any finding of legal culpability – is not only inappropriate, but tantamount to extortion.” 8
More than 20 years ago, Bob Carr – the Premier of the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) – affirmed his government's determination to make the asbestos company James Hardie (JH) pay its debt to victims and threatened to boycott the company’s building products; at that time, NSW government purchases accounted for 8.1% of all of JH’s annual sales. For decades James Hardie, dubbed the “Killer Company” by the award-winning Australian journalist Matt Peacock, had vigorously contested legal actions brought by the injured; as Australia’s largest manufacturer of asbestos products, there were an increasing number of claims.9
The Medical Research and Compensation Foundation (MRCF) which the company set up in 2001 to ring-fence its asbestos liabilities was woefully underfunded. Years of negotiations with government officials and victims’ groups followed.
 Robert Vojakovic, the President of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia (ADSA) and a long-term critic of James Hardie and its tame MCRF, flew to Holland from Western Australia in 2004 to attend the protest outside the building where JH’s AGM was being held. Robert (grey jacket) is standing next to Tinka de Bruin (red coat), Chair of the Netherlands Asbestos Victims’ Committee. Picture courtesy of the ADSA. |
In 2001 JH decamped to the Netherlands, ~10,400 miles away from its former headquarters in Sydney. Nine years later JH was on the move again; this time to Ireland, ~10,700 miles away with another move earlier this year to the USA.10 The relocation to New York was highly contentious with widespread criticism from angry Australian campaigners and incandescent shareholders who had been denied a vote in the $14 billion buyout deal by a US company.
Commenting on the company’s latest move Melita Markey, CEO of the ADSA, said:
“Matt Peacock and my father Robert Vojakovic referred to James Hardie as the Killer Company. The name is as apt now as it has ever been with home renovators and builders still uncovering asbestos products even though sales of Hardie asbestos material stopped years ago. Sadly, ADSA members know full well the cost of exposure to JH’s asbestos material. Our message to JH is: ‘Cough up and clean up. JH products continue to kill Australians whether you are in Sydney, Amsterdam, Dublin or NY. The toxic legacy you left behind remains a serious and immediate threat to future generations.’”11
Having highlighted in the preceding paragraphs the latest machinations of Cape plc and James Hardie, it goes without saying that other one-time asbestos giants like Johns Manville (US), Nichias (Japan) and Uralita (Spain) also attracted their fair share of negative attention. Till fairly recently, however, the exception to the rule has been the Eternit asbestos group.
 |
For decades subsidiaries of this industrial behemoth succeeded in flying under the radar.12 A landmark 2023 judgment in an asbestos lawsuit brought in Belgium13 and a legal case launched last month (June 2025) by Dutch Prosecutors suggest that the tide may finally be turning.14 Charges of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide have been brought not only over asbestos exposures experienced at the Eternit factory in Goor, Holland but also over the lethal consequences of exposure to take-home asbestos.
The criminal case against Eternit was the result of research undertaken by a specialized police team following a 2019 complaint by the Dutch Asbestos Victims’ Committee (Comité Asbestslachtoffers). The five-year long investigation was described by the Dutch police as “one of the largest cold cases ever.” The upcoming legal proceedings will consider the asbestos deaths of two Eternit employees and the partner of one of the workers. According to the Committee’s lawyer, since the 1970s there have been many more Dutch asbestos-related deaths linked to Eternit.
Of course, as traditional avoidance strategies collapse, new avenues will be explored by lawyers, accountants and other experts to off-load defendants’ asbestos liabilities. The battle for justice is never-ending.
July 29, 2025
_______
1 Plevin, M.D., Kalish, P.W. Where Are They Now? A History Of The Companies That Have Sought Bankruptcy Protection Due To Asbestos Claims. August, 2001.
https://www.crowell.com/a/web/wpmrMnpU1jLKL6rxyFGviX/docassocfktype_articles_424.pdf
2 United States v. Nicolet, Inc., 712 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Pa. 1989).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/712/1193/1475514/
3 Kazan-Allen, L. Asbestos Compensation Endangered by Insurer Collapse. British Asbestos Newsletter. Issue 41. Winter 2000-01.
https://www.britishasbestosnewsletter.org/ban41.htm
4 Kazan-Allen, L. Tipping the Balance: Exit Strategies of UK Asbestos Defendants. British Asbestos Newsletter. Issue 46. Autumn 2006.
https://www.britishasbestosnewsletter.org/ban64.htm
As of 2022, the T&N schemes have paid out a total of £125,110,000 (US$169.4m).
The T&N UK Asbestos Trust and The T&N EL Trust Trustee’s Report for the year to September 30, 2022.
https://tandnasbestos.org.uk/document-library/
Briefing: T&N Ltd. May 2, 2000.
https://ibasecretariat.org/lka_tn_dev.php
Kazan-Allen, L. Chronology of T&N Development from 1920-1972. May 2, 2000.
https://ibasecretariat.org/lka_tn_chron.php
5 Press release of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Occupational Safety and Health. Cross-Party MPs call for ban on contracts to major building firm, Altrad – and for asbestos removal programme. June 30, 2025.
https://www.appgosh.org/post/the-legacy-of-cape-plc-and-the-case-for-justice
6 ibid.
7 Kazan-Allen, L. International Ban Asbestos Secretariat Devil’s Dust Awards 2025. January 17, 2025.
https://ibasecretariat.org/lka-international-ban-asbestos-secretariat-devil-s-dust-wards-2025.php
8 Lago, C. Altrad says MPs’ call to ban firm from public contracts ‘tantamount to extortion.’ July 7, 2025.
https://constructionmanagement.co.uk/altrad-says-mps-call-to-ban-firm-from-public-contracts-tantamount-to-extortion/
9 Kazan-Allen, L. Australia: Escalation in Asbestos Litigation. August 15, 2001.
https://ibasecretariat.org/lka_aus_comp.php
Kazan-Allen, L. James Hardie Condemned! September 22, 2004.
https://ibasecretariat.org/lka_james_hardie_cond.php
10 Evans, S. James Hardie off to NYSE after months of anger over Azek deal. June 28, 2025. (Subscription site)
https://www.afr.com/companies/infrastructure/james-hardie-off-to-nyse-after-months-of-anger-over-azek-deal-20250625-p5ma3d
11 Email from Melita Markey. July 25, 2025.
12 Ruers, B. Eternit and the SAIAC Cartel. Chapter 1. Eternit and the Great Asbestos Trial. 2012.
https://www.ibasecretariat.org/eternit-great-asbestos-trial-chap-1.pdf
Kazan-Allen, L. Getting Away with Murder. August 11, 2012.
https://www.ibasecretariat.org/lka-getting-away-with-murder.php
13 Kazan-Allen, L. Historic Victory for Belgian Asbestos Victims. December 7, 2023.
https://www.ibasecretariat.org/lka-historic-victory-for-belgian-asbestos-victims.php
14 Bouwfabrikant Eternit vervolgd om blootstelling werknemers aan asbest [Construction manufacturer Eternit prosecuted for exposing employees to asbestos]. June 17, 2025.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2571438-bouwfabrikant-eternit-vervolgd-om-blootstelling-werknemers-aan-asbest
Michielsen, T. Eternit in Nederland vervolgd wegens asbestdoden [Eternit prosecuted in the Netherlands for asbestos deaths]. June 17, 2025.
https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/zware-industrie/eternit-in-nederland-vervolgd-wegens-asbestdoden/10612164.html
Pays-Bas: la société Eternit poursuivie par la justice pour deux décès liés à l’amiante [Netherlands: Eternit company sued for two asbestos-related deaths]. June 17, 2025.
https://www.rtbf.be/article/pays-bas-la-societe-eternit-poursuivi-par-la-justice-pour-deux-deces-lies-a-l-amiante-11562911
