The legal fight continued between Johnson & Johnson and plaintiffs firm Beasley Allen last week when accusations of “ethical lapses” and a “revenge campaign” were made. In a letter, Johnson & Johnson insisted that a Beasley Allen’s client email was handled ethically by its outside counsel Jim Murdica, of Barnes & Thornburg.
Beasley Allen, a Montgomery, Alabama-based law firm, is defending itself against allegations of hindering J&J’s latest $6.48 billion bankruptcy plan meant to resolve thousands of talcum powder lawsuits. According to J & J, Beasley was alluding to others in the plaintiff’s bar that the settlement values fall short of what their clients could receive if taken to court.
J&J filed a disqualification motion against Beasley Allen and recently subpoenaed the firm for records about its relationships with litigation funders. The move comes after one of the firm’s clients emailed its lawyers to inquire about its bankruptcy plan.
Beasley Allen Fires Back
It didn’t take long for Beasley Allen and the talc plaintiffs’ steering committee in the multidistrict litigation in New Jersey to fire back. The firm countered with two motions to quash the subpoenas, which were labeled as a revenge tactic by J & J against Beasley Allen, principal Andy Birchfield, and talc victims.
“Not content with filing a disqualification motion for purely tactical reasons and to harass opposing counsel, J&J served a subpoena on Beasley Allen to obtain irrelevant, privileged communications with its clients,” Jeffrey Pollock, of Fox Rothschild in Princeton, New Jersey, argued in Beasley Allen’s motion.
“The subpoena is a new low for J&J in its proxy war with opposing counsel Beasley Allen and its assault on its customers—individuals harmed by J&J’s products and Beasley Allen’s clients.”
The plaintiffs’ steering committee also filed separate motions in the multidistrict litigation filed which said that the subpoenas went way beyond the scope of permissible discovery normally protected by the attorney-client privilege.
The motion went on to say, there is no evidence that any of legal decisions are driven or swayed by litigation funders.
J&J refuted those claims in a letter, saying no attorney-client privilege applied to the client’s email, which was sent to Thomson Reuters and two of its lawyers.
Texas Two-step
This is just one of many legal battles between Beasley Allen and J&J, following its latest bankruptcy plan on May 1. Under its subsidiary LTL Management, the pharmaceutical company suffered two failed Chapter 11 cases last year.
On May 22, Beasley Allen and other plaintiffs firms filed a class action against J&J and its subsidiaries over its “fraudulent transfers,” such as the “Texas two-step” merger. The group of women involved in the class action lawsuit maintained that they developed cancer after using Johnson & Johnson’s talc products. It claimed J&J engaged in fraudulent practices to avoid paying them damages.
“For decades, J&J, one of the richest corporations in the world, knowingly sold asbestos-laden talc in its Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products that led to tens of thousands of women developing ovarian cancer and thousands developing mesothelioma,” lawyers for the women stated in a complaint filed May 22 in U.S. District Court of New Jersey.
J & J Bankruptcy Plan Up for Vote
According to a letter by J&J, the class action lawsuit and last week’s quash motions are just a barrage of “litany of materials” designed to stop women from voting for the bankruptcy plan.
Countless claimants and their litigation teams continue to push back against J&J’s $6.48 billion proposed settlement. If accepted, the deal would allow it to resolve the lawsuits through a third bankruptcy filing of a subsidiary company.
