A trust website’s payment-percentage notice may report an implemented rate, a temporary rate while a required consent process is pending, or only the start of a reconsideration. Those are materially different events. Treating all three as a completed final rate change can make a tracker less accurate, not more useful.

This explainer compares four public 2026 notices. The notices are controlling for their own trust-specific statements; this article does not use them to estimate individual claim payments, trust assets, or system-wide payouts.

Four different notice patterns

Manville — implemented increase

Source date: September 3, 2026. The administrator says the pro rata percentage increased from 5.1% to 5.6% and that e-Claims changes were implemented September 2. The careful tracker treatment is to record 5.6% as the published current percentage while retaining the notice date and implementation context.1

Babcock & Wilcox — interim rate while consent is pending

Source date: June 30, 2026. The notice reduces the percentage to 4.3%, but also says required consent is pending and that 4.3% applies during that process. The 4.3% notice should therefore retain its pending-consent qualification rather than be presented as an unqualified final determination.2

Federal-Mogul — sub-account-specific interim rate

Source date: June 30, 2026. The notice reduces the T&N Sub-Account percentage to 2.9% and says that amount applies during the stated consent process. The percentage should be attributed to T&N, not automatically to every Federal-Mogul sub-account.3

Armstrong — reconsideration rather than a new rate

Source date: June 11, 2026. The Trustees began a required reconsideration and directed advisors to report on whether an adjustment is appropriate. That supports recording a reconsideration event, not a new payment percentage.4

An implemented rate is not the same as a reconsideration

The Manville announcement is framed as an approved increase and describes e-Claims implementation. That is different from Armstrong’s June notice, which says the Trustees began a reconsideration process and requested an advisory report. Armstrong’s notice does not state that a new percentage was adopted.1 4

That distinction is important for public research. A trust’s decision to review its percentage may lead to a future adjustment, no adjustment, or a later notice with qualifications. It should not be converted into a rate change before a source says that a rate changed.

Interim percentages and sub-account scope

The Babcock & Wilcox and Federal-Mogul notices both explain that a reduced percentage applies while a consent process is pending. The Babcock & Wilcox notice identifies 4.3% as applicable during the pending process, while the Federal-Mogul notice is expressly limited to the T&N Sub-Account and identifies 2.9% for that sub-account.2 3

Sub-account scope matters. A single corporate or bankruptcy name can cover more than one payment framework. The Federal-Mogul notice should not be used to imply that every Federal-Mogul-related sub-account pays 2.9%.

What these notices do not provide

None of the four notices supplies a current balance sheet for the respective trust, a new system-wide cumulative-payout total, or an individualized claim result. Payment percentages are part of a trust’s governing payment framework. They are not a promise of a particular result for every claimant and should be read with the applicable distribution procedures and source-specific qualifications.

For general background on asbestos trust structures, readers may consult WikiMesothelioma’s asbestos trust funds overview. It is a background resource only and does not control the trust-specific rates, effective dates, sub-account scope, or consent language summarized here.

Source and editorial note

This explainer compares four public trust or administrator notices. It does not provide legal advice, predict future payment-percentage decisions, or evaluate claim eligibility. No article-specific attorney review is recorded for this publication.