JAMES BERNSTEIN <james.bernstein@newsday.com>

Jun 12, 2009
GM hit by double whammy
They have been unjustly sued for harm of asbestos

when it is the harm of glycol ethers (such as brake fluid)

that is the real culprit

Too bad attorneys are getting the benefit from false public / current medical views here

http://www.valdezlink.com/re/shareharmglycolether2.htm

Why don't we change the law to allow housewives to know how much of these chemicals are in their home cleaning products?

_________________

As to the added burden of limiting CO2 emissions ....

Why not consider how much more CO2 glycol ether puts into the air?

Margaret Diann
Box 233
Valdez, AK 99686

907-835-5333

Consider exposure to a glycol ether for cause of 'the flu'  *

 
Asbestos Claimants Forgotten in GM Bankruptcy As General Motors Corporation proceeds down the slippery slope of bankruptcy proceedings, former workers who are claiming asbestos injury against the company are asking that an official committee be formed to address their issues before the company's funds are exhausted. Others are charging that the government's plan to sell the automaker may be unconstitutional, since injured workers have been left completely out of the loop of negotiations. Filing Sunday, June 7, in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York, lawyers for such claimants say the government has exceeded its authority, and GM's ability to sell its most valuable assets should be constrained by the company's failure to address legacy issues relating to such injury. In simplest terms, say lawyers, workers and former workers can't be bound by a company reorganization in which they have not participated, and due process limits the court's ability to enter an order on behalf of these current and future (e.g., currently unknown) claimants. In 2002, GM was on the hook for about $10 million in legal fees and settlements relating to asbestos. By 2007, that figure had risen to $637 million, and by 2008 it topped $648 million, according to regulatory filings. That this legacy of liability has been a matter of public knowledge, yet remains unaddressed by either the company or the government task force arranging the sale, borders on negligence, say lawyers representing the claimants. GM has made no comment, but arm of the Justice Department that oversees bankruptcy negotiations has reportedly appointed a committee to represent GM's unsecured creditors, including two individuals who will represent those suing the company for asbestos exposure and product liability. GM's Chapter 11 proceedings, which began on June 1 after the company failed to reorganize outside of court, imply that GM will - like other bankrupt companies in the past - funnel money into a trust to settle legal claims against it. Unfortunately, with a ton of claims and few assets, the fund may be severely under-representative of the damages incurred, even with the government's infusion of $50 billion, which will leave it owning 60 percent of the company.
The move that provoked the ruckus is GM's invoking Section 363 of the bankruptcy code, which allows it to sell off assets without getting approval from all creditors. The same thing happened with Chrysler Corporation in its proposed sale to Fiat, against which attorney Patricia Pascale filed a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Indiana State Teachers Fund and the Indiana Police Pension Trust.

As in the above case, the creation of a "new" GM under Section 363 would leave all asbestos exposure claimants in limbo, with no constitutional redress for their claims.

Even without Section 363, GM has often been reluctant to meet its obligations vis-à-vis asbestos injuries. Take, for example, the case of Roland Grenier, Sr., who, after having worked for 38 years as an auto mechanic, developed mesothelioma, a rare but fatal cancer associated with asbestos exposure.

Grenier sued GM and Ford Motor Company for asbestos-containing products they had manufactured, namely brake shoes and other friction products. Grenier ultimately won, but not before GM in particular attempted a pretrial motion to exclude Grenier's causation experts.

The jury found GM and Ford strictly liable, and also concluded that GM had acted negligently, allotting it 70 percent of the responsibility for Grenier's fatal cancer. Ford acquired 16 percent of the blame, and seven other friction product manufacturers (Abex, Bendix, Borg Warner, Daimler Chrysler, Hk. Porter, Johns-Manville, and Maremont) each got two percent of blame.

On losing the case, GM and Ford asked for an appeal, charging that the judge had abused his discretion by denying their motions to exclude Grenier's "irrelevant" expert testimony. This included physicians and asbestos experts testifying on Grenier's behalf.

It is hardly likely, given that kind of record, that GM will step forward of its own volition to settle asbestos-related injuries, and allowing the company to sell off its assets under Section 363 means the money to settle such claims will likely disappear into the widening pool of disaster financing the auto company now represents.

Sources: Bloomberg News, Detroit Free Press, Trader Currencies

Source mesotheliomaweb.org/jun200911a.htm