The Original Lawsuits Against Engelhard / BASF Dismissed

Following this initial lawsuit and settlement, the law firm Cahill, Gordon & Reindel LLP defended many similar lawsuits on behalf of Engelhard and BASF. The plaintiffs suffered from asbestos-related illnesses and worked in tire plants or other manufacturing facilities where they had regular contact with Emtal Talc.

In each case, Cahill asserted that Engelhard’s talc was asbestos-free and that no tests had ever proven otherwise. But the truth was very different.

As described in an opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Engelhard and Cahill were well aware of the presence of asbestos in Emtal Talc. Anticipating the thousands of lawsuits that would soon be brought against the company, Engelhard collected tests and reports proving the presence of asbestos in Emtal Talc and destroyed or secretly hid them away in a Cahill storage facility. Furthermore, Engelhard and Cahill created false reports by scientific experts to “prove” that Emtal Talc did not contain asbestos.

Using this defense, Cahill succeeded in intimidating plaintiffs nationwide to dismiss their cases against Engelhard.

A Terrible Injustice Finally Brought to Light

The systematic fraud perpetrated by Engelhard and Cahill began to come to light in 2009, when Donna Paduano, the daughter of Engelhard scientist David Swanson, sued BASF in New Jersey State Court. Paduano had a terminal mesothelioma diagnosis and claimed that dust from her father’s clothes and visits to the Engelhard facility had caused her illness. In a deposition, her father stated that while working at Engelhard in the 1980s he was told that “asbestos in trace amounts was found in the [Emtal] talc.” Swanson also wrote that Engelhard’s legal department told him and other employees to “purge our records.”

Swanson's testimony led attorneys to investigate Engelhard's cover-up of evidence of asbestos in its talc, and ultimately to sue BASF in federal court. In 2012, a class-action suit by asbestos claimants concerning Engelhard and Cahill’s deception and violation of legal ethics was brought in a U.S. district court in the Newark district of New Jersey, alleging that Engelhard committed fraudulent concealment and engaged in “deceptive fraud” intended to thwart the judicial process (Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC). Moreover, the suit accused Cahill of significant ethics violations. As Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University Law School explains, lawyers are forbidden “from assisting clients in committing a fraud.”

Although the district judge dismissed the case, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia revived the plaintiffs' fraud claims in 2014. In reinstating the lawsuit, Federal Judge Julio Fuentes stated that Engelhard and Cahill had “rigged the game from the beginning” by intentionally lying about and destroying the evidence of asbestos.

In July of 2020, BASF and Cahill agreed to settle talc/ asbestos-related injury claims. As reported by Bloomberg, Cahill stated that “this matter relates to a representation that was undertaken more than 35 years ago, and we are pleased to have resolved it amicably.” BASF and Cahill, have agreed to pay a combined $72.5 million to resolve the claims against them, pending court approval. The settlement allows thousands of people who unsuccessfully sued Engelhard and BASF between 1984 and 2011 - or their relatives and beneficiaries, if they are no longer alive - to revive their claims and potentially receive significant cash compensation.