Bankruptcy Denied: What the Latest Blow to J&J Means for Talc Litigation

April 1, 2024

No, this isn’t an April Fools’ joke — Johnson & Johnson really did just lose another attempt to push its talc liability into bankruptcy court. And while the timing might suggest otherwise, the implications are very real.

In a major win for plaintiffs, a federal bankruptcy judge has once again shut down J&J’s effort to resolve tens of thousands of cancer-related claims through a controversial Chapter 11 maneuver. This marks the third rejection of the company’s attempt to resolve talc claims in bankruptcy, and this time, J&J says it’s done fighting that fight.

That’s right — in a surprising turn, J&J has announced it will not appeal the ruling. After years of doubling down on a strategy that relied on isolating its talc liabilities in a subsidiary and sending that entity into bankruptcy, the healthcare giant is stepping back from the bankruptcy route altogether. The company’s proposed $10 billion settlement through a prepackaged bankruptcy plan was derailed after Judge Christopher Lopez found that J&J’s process for collecting votes from talc claimants was fundamentally flawed. Too many of the alleged victims were given an unreasonably short amount of time to respond, and as a result, the vote count could not be relied upon. Without sufficient support, the plan collapsed.

For the thousands of women and families who claim they were harmed by J&J’s talc-based products — many alleging links to ovarian cancer or mesothelioma — the decision is more than just a procedural victory. It’s a signal that the courts will not allow powerful corporations to shortcut accountability by using bankruptcy as a mass tort escape hatch.

Plaintiff attorneys have long criticized this tactic as a dangerous precedent, one that could allow wealthy defendants to freeze litigation and force claimants into settlements far below what juries might award. Now, with the bankruptcy route closed off for the foreseeable future, these cases are headed back to where many believe they belong: courtrooms.

That shift could open the floodgates. Civil litigation means discovery resumes, new trials are scheduled, and the risk of large jury verdicts becomes real again for J&J. While that might sound like good news for plaintiffs, it also means the fight is far from over. This is now a war of attrition. Plaintiffs’ firms must be ready to dig in — investing time, money, and resources to build strong individual cases in a post-bankruptcy landscape.

J&J, for its part, is already making its position clear. The company says it plans to litigate these claims aggressively, arguing that its talc products are safe and that the lawsuits are “meritless.” That’s a bold stance given past jury verdicts — some of them reaching into the billions — but it reflects a new chapter in the company’s legal strategy. No more sweeping settlements, no more bankruptcy court maneuvering. It’s back to the trenches.

Still, don’t mistake J&J’s decision to abandon the bankruptcy route for a retreat. The company is gearing up for courtroom combat, and will try to exclude expert testimony that doesn’t meet the Daubert standards. Expect J&J’s legal team to go all in on this strategy.

This isn’t guesswork — it’s part of a broader theme in J&J’s public posture. “We continue to stand behind the safety of our talc products,” the company has said, maintaining that “decades of independent scientific evaluations” support its position. With that framing, J&J is signaling a willingness — even eagerness — to put science on trial. In reality, it means plaintiff experts should prepare for an all-out assault on their credentials, methodologies, and conclusions. If past performance is any indicator, J&J’s defense team will spare no expense in challenging everything from the selection of data to the way a slide is interpreted under a microscope. J&J knows that excluding just one or two key experts could fracture the integrity of entire dockets. The courtroom may be open again — but it’s far from a level playing field. Plaintiff lawyers will need to be more than persuasive. They’ll need to be bulletproof.

For legal professionals watching this closely, the ruling is a broader statement about the future of mass tort litigation. Courts are drawing a harder line on bankruptcy end-runs. The talc litigation may end up being a defining moment — not just for J&J, but for how American courts handle mass harm cases moving forward.

At the heart of this is a simple truth: plaintiffs want their day in court. And after years of detours, delays, and legal gymnastics, that day may finally be coming.

The Legal Calls Advantage - how we're different

• We know what really matters to you is the cost per compensable case.
• Our fraud detection department is second to none.
• Need medical records? Just ask.
• Non-incentivized intake agents! Most case originators pay a bonus to their agents on signing, which leads to signing unqualified claimants.
• We conduct in-depth interviews by asking open-ended non-leading questions, like an attorney would do.

Click here to book a call

Craig H. Alinder, Vice President

Office: 802-664-4201 | Email: craig@legalcalls.com

LegalCalls.com | Calendly | Download our most recent price sheet

Legal Calls, 2108 N Street, Suite 4809, Sacramento, CA 95816, (877) 853-5801

‍