Page Updated diciembre 30, 2025

Montana Talc Supplier Accused of Bad Faith Attempt to Evade Mesothelioma Claims

Página revisada y editada por

Abogado de mesotelioma Paul Danziger

Facing over 500 pending claims filed by mesothelioma victims and others diagnosed with enfermedades relacionadas con el amianto, a Montana-based talc supplier has filed for bankruptcy in the state of Texas. Representatives for the company’s unsecured creditors are objecting, calling the move “bad-faith forum shopping at its worst.”

Company Named in Mesothelioma Lawsuits Attempts Texas Two-Step

Barretts Minerals has always been based in the state of Montana, but that hasn’t stopped the company from attempting the legal strategy known as the “Texas Two-Step” to try to evade mesothelioma liability. In the same way that Johnson & Johnson and other companies have done, the company is being accused of “blatant forum shopping” after it filed for bankruptcy in Texas. Victims say the move is designed to avoid the potential of significant jury awards and have petitioned the Texas bankruptcy court to disallow the move.

Originally part of Pfizer, the company at the center of the mesothelioma controversy was spun off in 1992 and changed its name to Minerals Technology. But last July, that independent company established a new subsidiary called Barretts Ventures Texas, which borrowed close to $6 million at 10% interest just days before filing for bankruptcy. The money was used to buy two plots of land in Texas. Those are its only assets.

Lack of Debt Questioned by Judge Overseeing Mesothelioma Bankruptcy Claim

Among the many questions posed by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur in reviewing the talc company’s bankruptcy allegation was why they were filing for bankruptcy when they had no apparent debt. Representatives for mesothelioma victims and others diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases argue that the company has long centered its operations in Montana and that the move was specifically designed to shield it from taking responsibility for those harmed by its product.

The objections to this bankruptcy filing reflect growing judicial and creditor resistance to the use of strategic restructuring to sidestep asbestos accountability. By questioning the absence of genuine financial distress and the creation of a paper subsidiary with minimal assets, the court signaled skepticism toward maneuvers designed to stall or dilute mesothelioma claims. For victims, the challenge reinforces that bankruptcy courts may scrutinize talc suppliers’ motives closely and refuse to allow procedural tactics that undermine the fair resolution of asbestos-related injuries.