Representative publications and events featuring our experts.
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corporation Announces Divestiture
December 15, 2023
Zurn Elkay Water Solutions Corporation (“Zurn Elkay”) (NYSE: ZWS) announced that it divested four wholly-owned subsidiaries that hold asbestos liabilities and related assets and certain other assets and liabilities, to Zilco Holdings, Inc. (“Zilco Holdings”).
New PFAS Reporting Rule Increases Uncertainty for Legacy Liabilities
Written by Financial Asset Recovery Analytics, LLC (FARA Recovery)
Exposure to legacy liabilities may be impacted by the EPA's new PFAS reporting requirements.
Society for Corporate Governance: Legacy Liabilities Clouding Company Prospects? Consider this Approach
Written by Randi Morrison of the Society for Corporate Governance referencing articles by Milan Ceppi, Charles Oswald, and Mark Hemmann of Financial Asset Recovery Analytics, LLC (FARA Recovery)
Randi Morrison, General Counsel of the Society for Corporate Governance, recommends board members and others responsible for corporate governance should review several of our thought leadership pieces.
The Society for Corporate Governance, Inc. (the “Society”), founded in 1946 as the American Society of Corporate Secretaries, has over 3,500 members representing approximately 2,500 companies.
PLAC: Leveraging Science to Inform Proactive and Reactive Risk Management
Written by Caroline Gillie and Allison Killius of Cardno ChemRisk and Holland Sullivan of Financial Asset Recovery Analytics, LLC (FARA Recovery)
PLAC (the Product Liability Advisory Council) has shared insights in risk mitigation from the scientists at Cardno ChemRisk and the FARA Recovery team.
Click on the link below to read the article, or click here to contact us for more information.
AIRA: How Can Lessons Learned in Asbestos Help the Opioid Crisis?
Written by Jessica Horewitz and Marc Scoppettone of Nathan Associates and Holland Sullivan of Financial Asset Recovery Analytics, LLC (FARA Recovery)
AIRA (the Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors) shares lessons learned from decades of asbestos litigation are directly applicable in resolving opioid liabilities.
Click on the link below to read the article, or click here to contact us for more information.
Cos. Can Sell Future Asbestos Liabilities To Avoid Bankruptcy
Written by Milan Ceppi and Charles Oswald of Financial Asset Recovery Analytics, LLC (FARA Recovery)
Any asbestos defendant who is considering a Section 524(g) bankruptcy, or otherwise looking to be permanently freed from their contingent liabilities, may want to consider a structured sale to a third-party buyer for a more cost-effective and efficient way of achieving a full and final resolution of contingent legacy liabilities.
Click on the link below to read the article, or click here to contact us for more information.
Lessons From Asbestos Can Help Resolve Opioid Liabilities
Written by Jessica Horewitz and Marc Scoppettone of Nathan Associates and Holland Sullivan of Financial Asset Recovery Analytics, LLC (FARA Recovery)
Lessons learned from decades of asbestos litigation are directly applicable in resolving opioid liabilities.
Click on the link below to read the article, or click here to contact us for more information.
Leaving the Tort System Behind Via Corporate Risk Transfer
Written by J. Mark Hemmann of Financial Asset Recovery Analytics, LLC (FARA Recovery) and
Peter R. Kelso of Roux
Regardless of economic and legal conditions, legacy product and environmental liabilities hinder companies’ ability to operate efficiently and remain financially nimble in an ever-changing marketplace. Whether a company is private or public, the cost of managing and resolving an ongoing stream of lawsuits can be time-consuming, damaging to a firm’s reputation, and a financial drag on business operations and performance. This article examines the internal and external costs that companies incur by holding legacy liabilities and offers capital market solutions to shed contingent liabilities, exit the tort system, and achieve finality.
This article, published by Law360, is a resource to supplement our recent webinar, “An Exit From the Tort System: Removing Asbestos & Other Legacy Liabilities From Your Balance Sheet,” presented by members of FARA Recovery and Roux’s Economic & Complex Analytics Practice.
Click on the link below to read the article, or click here to contact us for more information.
In asbestos litigation, a plaintiff’s date of first exposure (“DOFE”) to asbestos is a crucial data point. DOFEs can help defendants discern to which products a plaintiff may have been exposed and determine which insurance policies may be triggered to reimburse defense and indemnity costs arising out of the case.
This is an important observation indicating the continuation of asbestos filings farther into the future. In addition, it is important for insurers because their policies will continue to be triggered for a longer period of time than would be the case if the ratio of DOFE creep were 1:1.
Click on the link below to read the article.
The current impact of legacy losses
Written by Raji Bhagavatula, Mark Goldburd and Jason Russ of Milliman.
Property and casualty (P&C) insurance headlines these days are generally focused on issues relevant to current policies. Although not receiving as much attention, historical accident years have also been experiencing deteriorating trends, both for mature exposures such as asbestos, environmental pollution, and construction defect claims as well as for emerging exposures related to talc, sexual abuse, and opioid litigation.
Understanding and coming to terms with the impact of these potential legacy losses is important, not only in the context of establishing an appropriate reserve, but also to form a view of the load for mass torts needed for pricing current policy years. The authors briefly discuss a number of these “legacy” topics that impact the general liability books of commercial insurance companies.
Divestments were all the rage in 2019, and prior to the coronavirus-induced market dislocation, they seemed to continue apace with the prior year’s expectations. There are many reasons why such spin-offs could occur – streamlining operations, focusing on a core business or its internal change, financial distress of a parent or an acquisition target, macro-economic and/or geo-political changes, among others. Fundamentally, any one reason is sufficient for a divestment, but having multiple reasons for such a divestment may also mask significant concerns in the underlying division or company being divested. This was no truer than was the case with Honeywell and its divestment of its contingent liability-weighted subsidiary, Garrett Motion.