In Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 772 F.3d 1001 (4th Cir. 2014) (Nos. 13-1839, 13-1840), the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed a panel decision which had affirmed two district courts’ decisions denying Rule 11 sanctions after remand of asbestos cases to state court. Two plaintiffs originally filed actions in state court against the defendant, both alleging liability based on asbestos exposure from the defendant’s facial makeup product. Defendant removed both actions to federal court. Plaintiffs moved to remand, telling the federal courts that the plaintiffs in the two cases had asbestos claims to bring against non-diverse defendants regarding other asbestos-containing products, and the district courts remanded the cases. In state court, the plaintiffs moved to consolidate their cases with two other cases against different, non-diverse defendants concerning different asbestos-containing products. Defendant opposed consolidation, arguing that its product was too different from the non-diverse defendants’ products and consolidation might cause unfair confusion. In reply, the plaintiff’s asserted that there was “absolutely no evidence to indicate or even suggest that the plaintiffs were exposed to the asbestos in any form other than [the makeup product]” of defendant. Because this statement directly contradicted the assertions plaintiffs made in district court to obtain the remand orders, defendant filed motions in the federal district courts for Rule 11 sanctions, including orders vacating the remands. Although the district courts denied these requests for sanctions, and the panel that initially heard the consolidated appeals affirmed, the en banc court reversed. The en banc court concluded that the district courts’ denials were based on a perceived lack of jurisdiction; in fact, the district courts had jurisdiction over the collateral matter of Rule 11 sanctions. Further, an order vacating the prior remand orders based on attorney misconduct did not constitute review of the remand orders on the merits and, consequently, did not violate 28 U.S.C. §1447(d).