For further information concerning these matters, or other issues concerning asbestos litigation reform legislation, please contact members of the ALRA Group (formerly ATFS Group).

May 1, 2008
The ALRA Group is pleased to announce the publication of its White Paper, “Asbestos Claims and Litigation: Update and Review: 2007 New Case Filing Summary and Analysis.” This paper is a continuation of the annual proprietary analysis performed by the ALRA Group of the new asbestos cases filed in 2007 in significant jurisdictions involved in the asbestos litigation. It follows similar papers in 2005 and 2006, whose reception by organizations with a stake in the asbestos litigation resulted in a request for this annual update.
Read this Paper

April 1, 2008
The ALRA Group is pleased to announce its review and analysis of the most recent trend in the rapidly evolving landscape of asbestos litigation, the external insulation claim. In the White Paper, “Asbestos Claims and Litigation: Recent Trends in the Law; External Insulation Claims Summary and Analysis,” the ALRA Group notes that defendants in asbestos litigation have had success with defenses, including the “no dose” defense, the “low dose” defense, and the fiber type or chrysotile defense with respect to claims of asbestos exposure resulting from equipment and components. In response, certain innovative plaintiffs’ counsel have developed the claim that external insulation applied to such equipment is the responsibility of the equipment manufacturer or supplier defendants. By doing so, they attempt to revive the asbestos insulation exposures no longer directly available as a result of asbestos insulation company bankruptcies.
Read this Paper

July 19, 2007
The ATFS Group is pleased to announce the publication of its Report "Asbestos Claims and Litigation: Update and Review : 2006 New Case Filing Summary and Analysis." The Report is an annual update following the Group's 2005 Report "Asbestos Claims and Litigation - Issues and Strategy: An Analysis of the Cases Through 2005 Against a Historical Context." The paper is a review and analysis of the of the new asbestos cases filed in 2006 in many of the significant jurisdictions. It draws upon the collective experience of the ATFS Group members, who have been have been involved in the day to day supervision, strategy and handling of the defense of cases in every jurisdiction in the country for over 25 years.
Read this Paper

December 1, 2006
The ATFS Group is pleased to announce the publication of its White Paper entitled "Asbestos Claims and Litigation - Issues and Strategy: An Analysis of the Cases Through 2005 Against a Historical Context." This paper is a comprehensive review and analysis of the legal, medical and scientific basis for the asbestos claims and defenses, a historical review of their progression, and an analysis of recent trends, culminating with a summary of the new cases filed through 2005 in many of the significant jurisdictions. It draws upon the collective experience of the ATFS Group members, who have been have been involved in the day to day supervision, strategy and handling of the defense of cases in every jurisdiction in the country for over 25 years.

The White Paper is designed to assist government officials, companies, insurers, and analysts with a stake in the asbestos litigation.
Read this Paper

January 24, 2006
Members of the Asbestos Trust Fund Services Group handle the defense of asbestos cases in virtually all states throughout the United States, and as a result of that experience, are familiar with the changes and evolution of the legal landscape with respect to asbestos litigation. Ohio, Georgia, Texas, Florida, and Mississippi have recently adopted changes to their state law with respect to asbestos cases.
Read a Summary of This Legislation

New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia have pending legislation.
Read a Summary of This Legislation

December, 2005
The insurance industry has been an advocate for asbestos litigation reform legislation. Nevertheless, there has been a split within the insurance industry with respect to support for the FAIR ACT. Certain insurers oppose the Act's Trust Fund approach and/or provisions which rely upon three major funding sources: insurance company contributions, Defendant company contributions, and existing Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Fund contributions. In the December, 2005 issue of Best's Review, a leading and respected journal of the insurance industry, Eleanor Barrett summarizes asbestos litigation reform from an insurer perspective.
Read this Article

December 19, 2005
Following publication of projections of the financial impact of the FAIR ACT by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and a competing projection by the economic consulting firm, Bates White, LLC, Senate Chairman Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Arlen Specter directed the CBO to review and analyze the Bates White projections, which concluded that the financial obligations under the FAIR ACT could far exceed those projected by the CBO. The CBO prepared an analysis titled ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL CLAIMS UNDER S. 852, THE FAIRNESS IN ASBESTOS INJURY RESOLUTION ACT OF 2005, dated December 19, 2005, and presented it to Senator Specter in a letter dated December 19, 2005. In its analysis, the CBO concluded that the Bates White analysis contained no new or different information which would cause the CBO to change its August 25, 2005 projections. It noted that the CBO and Bates White analyses could not be directly compared because their respective estimates addressed different questions. The CBO estimated the value of valid claims that would be presented to the Asbestos Injury Claims Resolution Fund, while Bates White estimated the value of claims which could be presented to the Fund.
Read this Letter

December 8, 2005
The National Taxpayers Union (NTU), and National Taxpayers Union Foundation are Washington, DC based organizations who describe their mission as providing education for taxpayers, the media, and elected officials on a non-partisan basis on the merits of limited government and low taxes. On December 8, 2005 it issued its NTU Policy Paper 118 by Jeff Dirkson, titled Gordian Knot: How the Senate's Asbestos "Reform" Bill Entangles Taxpayers. The Paper provides an overview and analysis of the potential impact upon the federal budget of the FAIR ACT from the perspective of the NTU. NTU reviewed the CBO and Bates White estimates of the potential claims under the ACT, its potential funding, and the testimony of witnesses before the Senate Judiciary Committee on those issues, and concluded as follows:

1)	The Asbestos Claims Injury Resolution Fund proposed under the Fair Act may be insufficient to compensate claimants who may be expected to present claims under the Fund, resulting in unanticipated obligations, including borrowing and debt service.
2)	Based upon past experience with the Black Lung Fund established by Congress to administer claims for coal miners' disease, and the savings and loan industry crisis and bailout, NTU believes that the federal government may be called upon to bail out the Fund.
3)	NTU proposes an alternative legislative solution, a so-called medical criteria approach such as the bill introduced in the House of Representatives; H.R. 1957, which would establish statutory medical and claim criteria for asbestos claims to proceed within the tort system in the courts.

Read this Paper

November 23, 2005
The Coalition for Asbestos Reform (CAR) is a group composed of smaller and mid-sized companies who are Defendants in asbestos litigation, but who object to the Trust Fund approach proposed under the FAIR ACT. These objections are based on a variety of grounds, but focus on the fact that as the CAR members view the ACT, its funding mechanism unfairly target them to the benefit of larger Defendant companies. In a series of correspondence between CAR and Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the senate Judiciary Committee, and his staff, CAR presented its position that its member companies would be unable to comply with the FAIR ACT reporting requirements (which asks that Defendant companies report their historical expenditures for asbestos claims and litigation through December 31, 2002) because such information is often incomplete and in the hands of insurance companies from which it often cannot be retrieved or reconstructed. Under the FAIR ACT, such historical experience information forms the basis for the Defendant companies' funding obligation to the Asbestos Injury Claims Resolution Fund. In a letter to Senator Specter dated November 23, 2005, CAR Chairman Thomas R. O'Brien outlined his members' concerns.
Read this Letter

November 17, 2005
The Senate Judiciary Committee took the unusual step of holding a further hearing on the FAIR ACT even though the Judiciary Committee had already reported the bill out to the full Senate. In connection with that hearing the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) presented testimony through its Director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, concerning its projections for the economic viability of the Act, together with a comparison of the CBO projections with those by the economic consulting firm of Bates White, LLC. In its Statement, entitled Estimates of the Potential Cost of Claims Under the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, the CBO focused on four points, as follows:

1)	CBO estimates projected that the FAIR ACT Asbestos Injury Claims Resolution Fund (Fund) would be presented with valid claims totaling between $120 billion and $150 billion over its 50 year life, in addition to financing costs, and administrative expenses. The Act would terminate payment of new claims in the Fund's resources proved inadequate.
2)	CBO's estimate is based upon the analyses of a number of experts relying upon epidemiological data, disease incidence projection, and the historical experience of Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts.

Read this Statement

November 16, 2005
At the request of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided further information to update its report and analysis of the economic impact of the proposed FAIR ACT presented on August 25, 2005. In a letter to Senator Specter dated November 16, 2005, the CBO advised that the CBO over the 50 year life of the projected Asbestos Injury Claims Resolution Fund, it estimated that nearly 100,000 claims for malignant conditions would be filed and almost 1.5 million claims for nonmalignant pulmonary disease would be filed, 20 percent of which would be pending at the inception of the Fund. The CBO projected claims by disease over the Funds life, including 41,422 mesotheliomas, 19,764 lung cancers with asbestosis, 21,074 lung cancers with pleural disease, 17,512 other cancers, 33,307 claims of asbestosis, 149,214 claims of mixed asbestosis/pleural disease, 31,850 claims of pleural disease with pulmonary impairment, and 1,270,034 cases of pleural disease without pulmonary impairment. The CBO further advised that while there was significant uncertainty surrounding the number, timing, and types of claims submitted to the Fund, the Fund Administrator would not provide compensation unless amounts in the Fund were sufficient to make such payments.
Read this Letter