Managing legacy liabilities is never easy. For some, it can be a nightmare. Thus, James Hardie and its asbestos compensation fund took yet another hit yesterday through the loss of a tax appeal.  The loss is  described here in mass media in Australia. The mass media is focused on the fund’s long term survival prospects in light of the

Back to Australia, asbestos and James Hardie.

As described in this prior post, a rather dry paper by KPMG describes the history of James Hardie and its many intersections with asbestos and asbestos-containing products. That dry look is of course needed and appropriate in the sense that decisions need to be made based on technical information.

There are

James Hardie’s asbestos trust continues to create issues. Here is an article regarding the Australian tax regulator seeking and gaining access to asbestos-related papers, apparently including papers exchanged with its accountants. Trusts are plainly an excellent concept for resolving asbestos and other toxic tort claims without massive litigation waste, but they are indeed complex undertakings.

The Australian version of the WSJ has an interesting article by a McKinnsey consultant writing about corporate reputation risk, with the article somewhat tied back to James Hardie. An interesting read.


Contingent liabilities are not easy to manage, as exmplified by this month’s events for James Hardie. To begin with, its business is down

The Australian SEC – known as ASIC – has posted on its website the charges it filed, and a document summarizing which charges were sustained and which were dismissed. All of the charges relate in one way or the other to James Hardie’s contingent risks regarding asbestos claims.

Update: The opinion/judgment is available here