150 Plaintiffs and Counting: Asbestos Litigators Sue De Beers Empire
A Dallas asbestos litigation law firm is suing De Beers PLC and 28 affiliated companies on behalf of 159 plaintiffs.
November 13, 2024 at 04:06 PM
3 minute read
Products LiabilityWhat You Need to Know
- De Beers, Altrad and related companies are being sued for over 150 plaintiffs for asbestos related diseases.
Dallas-based Dean Omar Branham Shirley filed suit in Columbia, South Carolina state court for more than 150 plaintiffs seeking asbestos disease-related damages against De Beers PLC and its affiliated companies.
The complaint filed Monday in the Court of Common Pleas, County of Richland for the Fifth Judicial District names plaintiffs based in South Africa, the United Kingdom and the Bailiwick of Jersey, France, Switzerland, as well as in several states in the United States.
The 91-page complaint, styled Augustus A. Adams et al v. Cape PLC et al, was filed in South Carolina because a Cape PLC is the U.S.-based successor in interest to Cape Industries Ltd.—a United Kingdom-based company and De Beers project formed in 1891—and its subsidiares and global affiliates, according to the complaint.
“Cape and its related entities, by its own admission, sold more than 95% of the type of asbestos commonly used in industry and on U.S. Navy ships for decades. That asbestos is responsible for untold death and despair among the workers of South Carolina and the nation,” said Trey Branham, partner at Dean Omar Branham Shirley, who along with co-counsel Theile McVey of Kassel McVey represents the plaintiffs.
Cape PLC was acquired by Altrad Group, a French company, in 2018. Several Altrad entities are also named defendants.
Altrad and De Beers corporate offices were contacted to request comment, but had not responded by the publishing deadline.
Cape had a monopoly on amosite, a lucrative form of asbestos that was "an ingredient in the most popular and dominant asbestos products in the market, which were used in virtually every states, including products used in South Carolina," the complaint states, adding, "The volume of Cape's asbestos supply to the United States was breathtaking."
The complaint alleges Cape led efforts in the U.S. to hide from consumers and its own employees the risks it knew existed. When asbesto-related lawsuits began surfaced in the 1970s, Cape took measures to shield itself by creating new entities and then fleeing the U.S.
"It is sadly unsurprising that Cape, acting with various other foreign entities, concocted this scheme, because Cape boldly admitted that it had no 'moral responsibility' to the people injured or killed," the complaint alleges. "Executing on that scheme, Cape allowed default judgments against it in asbestos lawsuits across the United States, and simply absconded, leaving no assets for recovery."
The complaint claims the De Beers companies, "controlled by the powerful Oppenheimer family of Jahannesburg," have so far avoided consequences by allegedly:
- Failing to follow corporate formalities among affiliated entities;
- Leveraging common ownership and control of entities to effectively dominate the South African economy and global market for certain forms of asbestos;
- Creating a byzantine web of entities with the deliberate purpose of avoiding public scrutiny and escaping liabilities;
- Siphoning funds from entities to maximize financial return to Cape's overseas owners, eliminate liabilities, escape responsibility by neutralizing the risk of asset attachment by tort creditors;
- Destroying corporate records and publicly misrepresenting the nature of Cape's business.
“This case is about finally bringing this company to the forefront for the harm they’ve caused,” said Ms. McVey, managing partner of Kassel McVey. “We intend to hold these bad actors to account for the damage they have inflicted on so many lives.”
Causes of action include negligence and negligence per se; product liability—strict, vicarious, and by breach of implied warranties—fraudulent misrepresentation; loss of consortium; and violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Some plaintiffs also included a wrongful-death cause of action.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Trigger Warning? The Untapped World of Trigger Theories in PFAS Coverage Litigation
6 minute readInfant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
4 minute readProcedural Lessons for Litigators From Fifth Circuit Decision in 'Palmquist'
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 2Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 3USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
- 4As Gen AI Acceptance Grows, Lawyers Race to Mitigate Risks
- 5Decisions Have 'Real-Life Consequences': Juvenile Court Judge Considered for Appellate Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250