💥New Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing - Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC💥

A talc-exposed debtor was born to file ... and finally does fourteen years later.

On February 16, 2026, Norwalk, CT-based Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC (the “debtor”) filed a chapter 11 sale case in the Northern District of New York (Judge Kinsella).* The debtor mines, processes, and distributes industrial minerals – generally clays – used in a variety of industries: pharmaceutical, agriculture, personal care, coating, adhesive, construction, industrial, and household products. Today, you can find the debtor’s products in everything from toothpaste to brake components.

Hopefully y’all can mentally picture those things because Jones Day is debtor’s counsel, and they didn’t regale us with a baker’s dozen images … unlike *ahem* other firms (🙄).

Back on topic, the debtor’s case is far from straightforward. The filing has been roughly fourteen years in the making, so we need to rewind and first address the debtor’s predecessor in interest, R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. (“RTVC”).

Back in 1916, the eponymous Robert Vanderbilt founded RTVC, focusing on mining clay for the paper product manufacturing industry. Then came the roaring ‘20s, during which it (i) shifted over to producing mineral fillers for use in rubber, (ii) organized an R&D department for new clay and pyrophyllite mineral applications, and (iii) broke into the ceramics business. In 1948, that last venture led to RTVC’s getting into the industrial talc production game, which it sold to ceramic industry participants and paint companies.

Then things hummed on for a couple decades when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, known more affectionately as OSHA, inserted itself into the mix. For that, let’s turn to CRO and first day declarant Dean Vomero, who also spends time managing director-ing at Applied Business Strategy LLC:

“The [OSHA] created confusion with respect to talc, when, in 1972, it adopted a regulation that identified six minerals, including tremolite and anthophyllite, as falling within the definition of asbestos, without recognizing the distinction between the two ‘growth habits’ of these minerals – asbestiform and non-asbestiform. To rectify this error, RTVC approached the government and, in 1974, OSHA confirmed that the 1972 standard regulated only the asbestiform varieties of tremolite and anthophyllite. Nevertheless, the lack of clarity continued after the original OSHA asbestos standard was passed and, prior to 1985, some of RTVC’s customers were cited by OSHA for violating the standard.”

Then after 1986 and 1992 OSHA updates, we get to the kicker:

“Since promulgation of its July 1992 standard, OHSA’s position has remained that the type of non-asbestiform tremolite and non-asbestiform anthophyllite found in the industrial talc produced by RTVC is not regulated as asbestos. RTVC’s regulatory efforts were pursued at considerable expense to RTVC in the belief that, by demonstrating its industrial talc products did not contain asbestos-related disease, RTVC could protect itself from unfounded claims of asbestos-related injuries.”

Source: GIPHY

The lawsuits started in the ‘80s, but really took off in the mid-‘00s, and while “[g]enerally, RTVC had been successful in defending against talc-related asbestos claims …,” RTVC saw the future on the horizon and got proactive.