On September 4, Johnson & Johnson boldly announced a $1.1 billion increase to its proposed talc settlement, This would increase the settlement to more than $9 billion paid over 25 years. The company framed this move as a development in resolving thousands of lawsuits alleging that J&J’s talc-based products caused ovarian cancer.
However, several plaintiffs’ lawyers quickly challenged this report, suggesting it was “nothing more than a misleading PR stunt” that misrepresented the true status of negotiations
Sources familiar with the plaintiff’s side dispute J&J’s portrayal of the situation, stating, ‘The statements made are inconsistent with the reality of ongoing discussions.
The sources allege that J&J’s press release grossly exaggerated the level of agreement among claimants, conveniently failing to acknowledge the numerous unresolved issues that continue to plague the settlement process.
Plaintiffs’ Firms Turn on Each Other
The situation dramatically turned on September 11 when Beasley Allen filed suit against Smith Law Firm. Beasley Allen has accused the Smith Law Firm of negotiating a deal with J&J without fully considering the interests of other plaintiffs’ firms.
J&J’s Legal Maneuvering: The “Texas Two-Step”
Central to J&J’s strategy is the use of the controversial “Texas two-step,” a legal tactic where the company creates a subsidiary to assume its talc liabilities, which then conveniently files for bankruptcy.
While technically legal, this move has faced intense criticism from plaintiffs and legal experts who view it as a calculated attempt to minimize J&J’s financial exposure.
The $1.1 billion addition to the settlement was intended to encourage more plaintiffs to accept the terms, but it seems to have only deepened divisions and fueled further skepticism.
Was J&J Misleading the Plaintiffs?
At the core of this heated dispute is the serious accusation that J&J’s press release deliberately misled the public and plaintiffs about the progress of the settlement. Claims that the company grossly exaggerated the situation suggest an underhanded attempt to influence the narrative in its favor.
As lawsuits between plaintiffs’ firms continue to mount and questions persist about the accuracy of J&J’s public statements, the path forward for the talc settlement remains murky at best.
FAQs: J&J $1.1 Billion Talc Settlement Increase
Below are a few of the questions we commonly hear regarding the case from social media and other channels.
Johnson & Johnson is facing lawsuits alleging that its talc products, such as baby powder, contained asbestos and caused cancer. The settlement aims to resolve these lawsuits through a financial agreement.
J&J added $1.1 billion to the settlement to address concerns from plaintiffs and to encourage more claimants to agree to the proposed terms, bringing the total offer to $6.5 billion.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that J&J’s announcement was misleading, suggesting that the company’s public statements did not reflect the true nature of the ongoing negotiations.
J&J employed the “Texas two-step” by creating a subsidiary to handle its talc liabilities, which then filed for bankruptcy. This move helps the company limit its overall financial responsibility.
With lawsuits between plaintiffs’ firms and unresolved disputes over the settlement terms, the case is expected to involve more legal challenges before reaching any final resolution.
