Johnson & Johnson battles court over $10 billion cancer link case
- Johnson & Johnson is attempting its third bankruptcy attempt to resolve nearly 62,000 lawsuits alleging that its baby powder caused cancer.
- The U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez will assess the legitimacy of the support for the settlement proposal amid ongoing concerns.
- The outcome of this case may determine the future of talc product litigation and the rights of claimants involved.
In the United States, Johnson & Johnson is contending with a significant legal challenge regarding its baby powder, which is alleged to have caused ovarian cancer due to asbestos contamination. The company is currently trying to convince a judge in Houston to approve its third attempt at resolving over 62,000 lawsuits through a bankruptcy process. J&J’s previous bankruptcy proposals to address this litigation have been rejected by the courts, leading them to hope for a more favorable outcome this time due to increased support for their settlement plan. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez is set to hear arguments regarding this latest Chapter 11 filing during a court hearing stretching for several weeks, concluding at the end of February. The judge will weigh the validity of the votes collected to support the proposal and assess whether a company of J&J's financial stature should protect itself from lawsuits via bankruptcy proceedings. Notably, J&J argues that the bankruptcy route offers a quicker and more equitable resolution for the numerous individuals affected by cancer, who could otherwise face protracted legal battles. The litigation stems from allegations that J&J's talc products, including baby powder, are contaminated with asbestos, contributing to the development of ovarian and other cancers—assertions that the company denies. J&J's vice president for litigation, Erik Haas, has claimed the bankruptcy proposal has overwhelming support among cancer victims and promises a better recovery outcome than trial verdicts that can vary widely. However, critics of the negotiations argue that this approach unfairly binds claimants who find the terms unsatisfactory, compelling them to accept lower payments. Supporters of the deal contend that bankruptcy law allows such settlements to be finalized despite discontent, thereby preventing further claims from being filed against the company in the future. The ongoing court proceedings will feature testimonies from various plaintiffs' lawyers who will express support for or opposition to the bankruptcy settlement, emphasizing the contentious nature of the deal in the broader context of the ongoing litigation.