Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Legal & Compliance · Legal decision · 2001–2011

James Hardie: the asbestos fund left A$1.3 billion short

In 2001 James Hardie spun its asbestos liabilities into a A$293M fund; by 2004 the shortfall was A$1.3B, and the deception cost a decade in court.

James Hardie Industries · 2001-02

What happened

In February 2001, Australian building materials maker James Hardie restructured so its asbestos liabilities sat in a separate entity: the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation, created with A$293 million in starting assets and owning the two subsidiaries that had made the asbestos products. The parent told the market the fund was fully funded for all legitimate future claims.

In June 2004 an actuarial review by KPMG Actuaries found the fund was short about A$1.3 billion — some A$500 million more than the company had claimed. The revelation prompted NSW premier Bob Carr to order a special commission of inquiry under David Jackson QC, and chief executive Peter Macdonald's defence — that the parent corporation was not liable for the trust — became the symbol of the affair.

After nearly twelve months of negotiations with unions and asbestos support groups, shareholders approved a compensation package in December 2005: total estimated liabilities of about A$3.13 billion, an initial injection of A$154 million, annual contributions from the company, and no cap on individual payments.

The accounting story then became a legal one. In April 2009 the NSW Supreme Court found that the company, the CEO and senior executives had breached their disclosure obligations over the 2001 statements. Some penalties were reduced on appeal in 2010, and ASIC took the case to the High Court, which agreed to hear the appeal in May 2011 — the defining corporate-governance case of its decade in Australia.

Why it happened

  • The fund was sized at A$293 million against liabilities KPMG later put at A$1.3 billion more — the actuarial work was never stress-tested against claims that arrive decades after exposure.
  • The parent treated legal separation as moral separation: the company's position, in Macdonald's words, was that the parent corporation was not liable for the trust it had created.
  • The 2001 claims that the fund was fully funded were later found to have breached disclosure obligations — the market was told a number the company designed, not an estimate it verified.
  • The fix took a state inquiry and a shareholder vote: the A$3.13 billion package came only after the shortfall was public and the company's reputation had collapsed.
What it costA$1.3B shortfall, then a A$3.13B deal, plus fines and banscatastrophic

The lesson

A 'funded' trust is only funded if the number is real. If the parent designed it, the gap eventually surfaces — and the parent still pays, with interest, fines and bans.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →