The record
A published Third Circuit opinion holds that allegations a talc producer and its counsel destroyed or concealed test results documenting asbestos in its talc state cognizable claims for fraud and fraudulent concealment, not barred by the litigation privilege.
Claim scope
A published federal appellate holding that the litigation privilege does not shield alleged systematic destruction of asbestos-in-talc test evidence: 'the privilege has never applied to shield systematic fraud directed at the integrity of the judicial process.' The opinion documents the industrial talc chronology: Engelhard operated a talc mine in Johnson, Vermont from 1967 to 1983, producing 'Emtal talc' and 'G&S Talc' used in 'wall board, joint compound, auto body "filler," dusting agents, and children's balloons.' It recounts that in the 1979 Westfall suit, Engelhard scientist Glenn Hemstock 'testified that Emtal talc contained asbestos fibers' and 'admitted that various tests performed throughout the 1970s and 1980s ... indicated the presence of asbestos fibers in Emtal talc.' The court's disposition: 'we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.'
What this source does not establish
CRITICAL: the court expressly states 'We accept as true the Amended Class Action Complaint's well-pled allegations.' Every factual assertion about asbestos content and document destruction is a PLEADED ALLEGATION accepted for Rule 12 purposes — not a finding. The court also AFFIRMED dismissal of the New Jersey RICO claim for failure to plead business/property injury. This is industrial talc (Emtal/G&S), NOT cosmetic talcum powder — do not import it into the consumer-product narrative.
Limitations
Reporter cite 765 F.3d 306 is DIRECTLY INDEXED in CourtListener's citations field. Pleading-stage posture is the dominant limitation on how this case may be used.
Source
Case Citation — Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 2014)