How Will J&J’s Third Bankruptcy Attempt Impact 62,000 Cancer Lawsuits?
Johnson & Johnson faced U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston on February 18, 2025, pushing for approval of its $10 billion proposal to end thousands of lawsuits linking its talc products to cancer. The hearing marked a decisive moment for the pharmaceutical giant and the 62,000 plaintiffs who claim J&J’s baby powder contained asbestos that caused ovarian and other cancers. Judge Lopez must now rule whether to approve the settlement through J&J’s subsidiary, Red River Talc, or shut down the bankruptcy case entirely. This represents J&J’s third attempt at using bankruptcy to settle the litigation after courts rejected two previous efforts, with hearings that continued through the end of February.
5 Key Points
- J&J faces 62,000 lawsuits alleging its baby powder and talc products caused ovarian and other cancers.
- The company firmly denies all claims that its products contained asbestos or caused any cancers.
- Courts rejected J&J’s two previous attempts to resolve the litigation through subsidiary bankruptcies.
- The current $10 billion settlement proposal requires approval from Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez.
- Opponents claim that J&J manipulated the voting process by applying different standards to votes for and against the plan.
Why Does J&J Believe Its Third Bankruptcy Attempt Will Succeed Where Others Failed?
Johnson & Johnson’s legal team believes this third bankruptcy filing stands apart from previous failed attempts because Red River Talc, its subsidiary, has gathered clear support from a majority of claimants. During the February 18 court session, Red River Talc attorney Allison Brown told Judge Lopez plainly: “We have the vote. There is enormous support for a historic and unprecedented plan.” The company portrays bankruptcy as a more efficient solution than the unpredictable nature of individual trials, which they describe as a “lottery-like” system where some plaintiffs win substantial awards while others receive nothing. In a statement, Erik Haas, J&J’s vice president for litigation, emphasized this position, claiming the proposal enjoys “overwhelming support” from cancer victims and “affords claimants a far better recovery than they stand to recover at trial.” By taking this route, J&J contends that plaintiffs would receive compensation far sooner than through years or decades of traditional litigation.
How Are Opponents Challenging The Legitimacy Of J&J’s Voting Process?
Critics have attacked the integrity of the voting process J&J used to demonstrate claimant support. In court on February 18, attorney Adam Silverstein, representing plaintiffs opposing the deal, accused J&J of implementing a “blatant double standard” in vote counting. Silverstein detailed how the company scrutinized every vote against its plan while waving through favorable votes with minimal verification. He cited specific examples where J&J allowed changes from “no” to “yes” votes but blocked at least one attorney who tried to change votes from “yes” to “no.” Silverstein also pointed to instances where the company accepted supportive votes from attorneys who lacked required medical records or proper client authorization—violations of J&J’s established voting protocols. These accusations form the backbone of the opposition’s position that claimants should retain their right to pursue individual cases rather than be forced into a settlement through the bankruptcy process.
What Legal Questions Does J&J’s Bankruptcy Strategy Raise For Corporate Liability?
The case has reignited debate about whether financially healthy corporations should be allowed to use subsidiary bankruptcies to shield themselves from mass tort litigation. Judge Lopez must weigh technical questions about vote validity and fundamental concerns about how bankruptcy law—designed primarily for insolvent entities—should apply to a company with J&J’s resources. The bankruptcy code allows settlements to bind all claimants, even those who would prefer their day in court, which explains why J&J keeps pursuing this strategy despite previous rejections. A favorable ruling would resolve existing lawsuits and permanently bar future talc-related claims against Johnson & Johnson. Legal experts watching the case say it could reshape how corporations handle mass tort liability, particularly for consumer products with potential long-term health effects. Many see the ruling as having implications far beyond J&J’s immediate legal troubles.
When Will Judge Lopez Make His Final Decision On The Settlement?
The court hearings that began on February 18 continued through the end of February 2025. Judge Lopez indicated he would not issue an immediate bench ruling but would write a comprehensive opinion after reviewing the extensive testimony and evidence presented during the weeks-long proceeding. His decision must address competing claims about vote manipulation, the appropriateness of using bankruptcy for these claims, and whether J&J’s $10 billion offer adequately compensates tens of thousands of cancer patients and their families. The judge faces pressure from both sides—plaintiffs’ attorneys who want their clients to have their day in court and J&J’s legal team arguing that bankruptcy offers the fastest route to compensation. Whatever his decision, it will mark a turning point in a legal battle that has stretched over years and involved multiple bankruptcy attempts by one of the world’s largest consumer healthcare companies.
On this page:
