Biglaw

Biglaw Firm And Client Agree To $73 Million Settlement Over Asbestos Claims

Closure on this case has been a long time coming.

By  
on

(Image via Getty)

Nine years later and BASF and its former counsel, Cahill Gordon, have agreed to a settlement over allegations they concealed potential asbestos in industrial and commercial talc. As reported by Law360, the $73 million fund will allow up to 20,000 plaintiffs to seek between $500 and $175,000 from the fund.

Those potential 20,000 plaintiffs will include those who brought litigation against BASF or their predecessor Englehard Corp between 1984 and 2011 over Emtal Talc products, used in industrial applications. The proposed class had their claims voluntarily dismissed, settled the suit, or had it involuntarily dismissed prior to March 2011. The plaintiffs allege that BASF and Cahill falsely asserted there was no evidence to suggest the talc products had asbestos, leading to the dismissals/settlements:

“In 2009, plaintiffs’ counsel obtained evidence, which they believe contradicted the claims made by defendants in the underlying lawsuits about Emtal Talc,” the motion said.

The trial court initially dismissed the lawsuit, but it was revived on appeal to the Third Circuit. It then underwent years of discovery disputes and attempts at mediation.

“After two intense, arms-length sessions conducted in the fall and winter of 2018, the parties in January 2019 forged an accord on the elements of a settlement. With an agreement in principle to settle the case, the parties negotiated and executed a term sheet,” the motion said.

And though this case is (only) nine years old, some of the underlying claims stem from almost 40 years ago, adding to the challenges of continuing the litigation. Which is just another good reason for the proposed settlement:

“After more than nine years of contentious litigation and extensive discovery, the parties, with the assistance of mediators, have reached a proposed class action settlement that is fair, reasonable and adequate for class members,” the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement said. “The settlement recognizes that the plaintiffs and the defendants each face substantial risks and costs in proceeding further with this litigation, and that resolving the case now provides benefits to both sides.”

Cahill has not commented on the proposed settlement.

Sponsored

headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Sponsored

Topics

, ,