Judge Moves Johnson & Johnson Closer to Potential ReorganizationLegislation & Litigation
Asbestos.com is the nation’s most trusted mesothelioma resource
The Mesothelioma Center at Asbestos.com has provided patients and their loved ones the most updated and reliable information on mesothelioma and asbestos exposure since 2006.
Our team of Patient Advocates includes a medical doctor, a registered nurse, health services administrators, veterans, VA-accredited Claims Agents, an oncology patient navigator and hospice care expert. Their combined expertise means we help any mesothelioma patient or loved one through every step of their cancer journey.
More than 30 contributors, including mesothelioma doctors, survivors, health care professionals and other experts, have peer-reviewed our website and written unique research-driven articles to ensure you get the highest-quality medical and health information.
About The Mesothelioma Center at Asbestos.com
- Assisting mesothelioma patients and their loved ones since 2006.
- Helps more than 50% of mesothelioma patients diagnosed annually in the U.S.
- A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau.
- 5-star reviewed mesothelioma and support organization.
"My family has only the highest compliment for the assistance and support that we received from The Mesothelioma Center. This is a staff of compassionate and knowledgeable individuals who respect what your family is experiencing and who go the extra mile to make an unfortunate diagnosis less stressful. Information and assistance were provided by The Mesothelioma Center at no cost to our family."LashawnMesothelioma patient’s daughter
How to Cite Asbestos.com’s Article
Povtak, T. (2022, April 12). Judge Moves Johnson & Johnson Closer to Potential Reorganization. Asbestos.com. Retrieved December 3, 2022, from https://www.asbestos.com/news/2021/08/31/johnson-johnson-reorganization/
Povtak, Tim. "Judge Moves Johnson & Johnson Closer to Potential Reorganization." Asbestos.com, 12 Apr 2022, https://www.asbestos.com/news/2021/08/31/johnson-johnson-reorganization/.
Povtak, Tim. "Judge Moves Johnson & Johnson Closer to Potential Reorganization." Asbestos.com. Last modified April 12, 2022. https://www.asbestos.com/news/2021/08/31/johnson-johnson-reorganization/.
Johnson & Johnson is closer to unloading its talc-related liabilities onto a new subsidiary that could subsequently declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy and dramatically alter the thousands of lawsuits the company is facing.
J&J is facing more than 34,000 lawsuits that link its talc-based products to cancer, the majority of which are ovarian cancer. A small fraction of those lawsuits involve malignant mesothelioma.
By threatening to move its talc liabilities into a massive bankruptcy proceeding, J&J could better protect itself from pending jury trials, drive settlements and potentially save billions of dollars.
To this point, J&J has continued to litigate cases in court and to defend the safety of its products, citing numerous studies that have shown no evidence of contamination.
Recent J&J Case Worth $26.5 Million
Although Johnson & Johnson has been successful in some cases, it also has lost many high-profile lawsuits.
Earlier this month, a state superior court jury in Alameda County, California, awarded $26.5 million to a woman who said her mesothelioma cancer was caused by a lifetime use of Johnson’s Baby Powder.
Her attorneys cited scientific information detailing how asbestos contamination occurs, along with court records from decades ago showing that company officials knew about the contamination.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a J&J request to consider overturning a Missouri court of appeals ruling that awarded $2.1 billion to 22 women.
Although J&J has not said publically if it will create a new corporate entity to lump cases into bankruptcy court, the company has raised the issue in various settlement talks.
Johnson & Johnson Subsidiary Would Cost Plaintiffs
The prospect of plaintiffs receiving considerably less money in bankruptcy court than in negotiated settlements alarmed personal injury attorneys and prompted the emergency motion in the District of Delaware court.
Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein, however, ruled against the motion and refused to bar the company from separating its talc liabilities, a legal maneuver that has been used in the past by several businesses facing large numbers of asbestos claims. One of those was Koch Industries Inc.’s Georgia Pacific LLC in 2017.
A committee of attorneys also have filed a similar request to block the maneuver in a Missouri state court, where another talc case is pending.
“The court rightly denied the plaintiff’s motion aimed at preventing J&J from engaging in a legitimate business transaction in the event that it chooses so,” wrote J&J attorney Diane Sullivan in a company statement. “This was yet another frivolous attempt by plaintiff contingency lawyers to try and compel J&J to settle their cases as it continues to defend the safety of its products in the court system.”
Congress Also Wants Answers from J&J
Johnson & Johnson is facing pushback from a U.S. House of Representatives oversight committee, which demanded in August any information regarding the company’s plans to create a subsidiary with intent to declare bankruptcy.
“We’ll carefully consider Judge Silverstein’s ruling and take our next steps,” Andy Birchfield, lead plaintiff attorney in the Delaware restraining order request, told The Wall Street Journal. “For now, this fight moves to a court in Missouri, where a judge will consider our emergency request to stop in its tracks any planned bankruptcy abuse by J&J.”
In the emergency request in Delaware court, attorneys alleged that any new subsidiary created would negatively affect the ongoing reorganization of Imerys Talc America, a former supplier for J&J that declared bankruptcy in 2019.
The Imerys bankruptcy plan involves funding from J&J, which could change if its talc liabilities also go into bankruptcy court.
After losing several cases in court, J&J announced in 2020 that it would end talc-based baby powder sales in the U.S. and Canada, but still insisted it was safe to use. It cited a declining consumer demand and “misinformation” about the product’s safety.