fbpx

Johnson & Johnson Talc Bankruptcy Petition Dismissal is a Win for Mesothelioma and Ovarian Cancer Victims

mesothelioma attorney Dave Butler

By Dave Butler

In a significant victory for injured consumers, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the bankruptcy petition of a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that holds the company’s liabilities for claims brought by thousands of consumers injured by exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc in Johnson & Johnson products.  The dismissal, on January 30, 2023, ends for now J&J’s efforts to avoid full responsibility for the claims of those suffering from mesothelioma, ovarian, and other cancers caused by its asbestos-contaminated products.

Through a series of corporate transactions under a unique Texas law, Johnson & Johnson created two new entities with the intention to funnel its liabilities for claims brought by thousands of injured talc claimants into a new entity which it named LTL Management; while simultaneously funneling all of its profitable business into another entity.  Two days after its formation and freshly saddled with J&J’s talc liabilities, LTL Management filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code claiming that its talc liabilities placed it in financial distress sufficient to allow it to seek the protections afforded by U.S. bankruptcy laws.

Injured talc victims sought dismissal of the bankruptcy petition, but were denied by a federal court in New Jersey.  Victims appealed that denial to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the J&J subsidiary had not demonstrated that its petition was filed in good faith and should be dismissed.

In its opinion the court found that “At base level, LTL, whose employees are all J&J employees, is essentially a shell company “formed,” almost exclusively, “to manage and defend thousands of talc-related claims” while insulating at least the assets in a non-bankrupt entity.  The court went on to find that “Because LTL was not in financial distress, it cannot show its petition served a valid bankruptcy purpose and was filed in good faith under” the United States Bankruptcy Code.  In conclusion, the court held that:

Our decision dismisses the bankruptcy filing of a company created to file for bankruptcy. It restricts J&J’s ability to move thousands of claims out of trial courts and into bankruptcy court so they may be resolved, in J&J’s words, “equitably” and “efficiently.” But given Chapter 11’s ability to redefine fundamental rights of third parties, only those facing financial distress can call on bankruptcy’s tools to do so. Applied here, while LTL faces substantial future talc liability, its funding backstop plainly mitigates any financial distress foreseen on its petition date.

Read the court’s full opinion here.

RPWB continues to seek justice for victims of exposure to Johnson & Johnson talc products. If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma after exposure to Johnson & Johnson talc products, please call us at u 1-866-594-8765 or fill out the form on this page to begin your case review.

Dave Butler has 30 years of experience representing mesothelioma victims and their families in cases throughout the United States. He can be reached at 1-866-594-8765 or by emailing dbutler@rpwb.com.

Our Experienced Lawyers

How can we help? Fill out the form for a free case review.

    Contact Us

    Case Types

    Related Posts

    FDA pushes for more testing amid asbestos exposure concern

    Current asbestos testing standards for industries that use talc are fairly loose. As recent reports have shown that many products contain this toxic substance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pushing for new testing standards. If implemented, it could possibly lower the risk of asbestos exposure for people in South Carolina and across the country.

    The FDA allowed the cosmetics talc industry to basically self-police when it comes to asbestos and testing. The last time the FDA held a hearing focusing on asbestos and testing methods in cosmetics was in 1971, meaning the industry has been handling these issues on its own for several decades. The FDA did not test any cosmetic products from then until 2018, when it discovered that many popular cosmetic products were contaminated with asbestos.

    In addition to stronger standards for testing talc, the FDA wants to take things one step further. Minerals that resemble asbestos are also frequently found in talc, but there are currently no testing requirements for those minerals. Experts agree that look-alike minerals quite often cause very similar health problems which are nearly indistinguishable from those related to asbestos.

    Both the FDA and the World Health Organization agree that there is no safe level for asbestos exposure. People can easily inhale tiny particles that then make their way to the lungs. Mesothelioma and ovarian cancer have both been linked to asbestos, and thousands of people — some in South Carolina — have already filed lawsuits against companies that sold tainted products. Many of these individuals are seeking compensation for things like medical care, loss of income and even physical and emotional trauma.

    Our Experienced Lawyers

    How can we help? Fill out the form for a free case review.

      Contact Us

      Case Types

      Related Posts

      Construction workers learn of asbestos exposure months later

      There is a very good reason that asbestos abatement is tightly regulated in South Carolina. When mishandled, asbestos fibers are released into the air. Those airborne fibers are easily inhaled. For those who do not quite understand just how serious this is, it is important to know that asbestos exposure can lead to a number of different cancers, including the incurable cancer mesothelioma.

      Asbestos was recently discovered at a construction site where a building had been demolished earlier in 2019. Construction workers were apparently not instructed to take any safety precautions for asbestos at the time of demolition. However, workers later discovered what they thought was likely asbestos inside another building at the same site.

      Following that discovery, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control — the SCDHEC — tested rubble from the demolished building. The results confirmed what the workers had already suspected. There had been asbestos in the building they had already demolished. Perhaps even more upsetting than realizing that they and the surrounding communities had been exposed to asbestos is just how long it took the SCDHEC to take action. The debris from the building had been left on-site for months.

      Many victims in South Carolina do not even realize they were exposed to asbestos until they develop a related disease. For those who do learn of their asbestos exposure beforehand, it is important to maintain detailed records of the event as well as medical histories. This type of information is often useful when a person develops mesothelioma or other cancer and chooses to pursue compensation for his or her damages. It might even be helpful to speak with an experienced attorney about what information is most important to document.

      Our Experienced Lawyers

      How can we help? Fill out the form for a free case review.

        Contact Us

        Case Types

        Related Posts

        Renovations caused asbestos exposure for residents, workers

        Having a safe place to live is important for the health and safety of all South Carolina residents. No one really wants to face ongoing health threats at home. Unseen dangers can be anywhere, though. For some people, a particularly troublesome unseen danger is asbestos exposure, which can cause life-threatening illnesses.

        The Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently cited a property management company for seriously mishandling asbestos during apartment renovations. According to OSHA, asbestos was frequently disturbed and released into the air at this out-of-state apartment complex. However, these violations are all related to employee safety and improper containment, as the men and women working at the complex were not told about the presence of asbestos or given any protective gear. The citations do not refer to the apartment residents, who were also unknowingly exposed.

        Residents were not told that they would have to leave during renovations, even when work went on in their units. According to one former resident, workers entered her apartment and performed work on all of her windows but did not clean anything up afterward. She apparently had to clean up all of the material that had been ripped out or discarded, most of which likely contained asbestos. All residents have since been evacuated from the property.

        There has to be a certain level of trust between tenants and landlords. Renters have to trust that the properties they live in are safe, but landlords sometimes break that trust in favor of minimizing their own costs. There can be serious consequences when this blatant disregard for safety results in asbestos exposure. If renters in South Carolina discover that they have been wrongfully exposed to asbestos, it is a good idea to maintain careful records of known exposures as well as related medical information. An experienced attorney might be able to provide further advice on which information to keep track of.

        Our Experienced Lawyers

        How can we help? Fill out the form for a free case review.

          Contact Us

          Case Types

          Related Posts

          You have probably been affected by asbestos exposure

          There are many valid concerns about being exposed to the toxic substance known as asbestos. Since asbestos exposure is known to cause mesothelioma and other fatal diseases, most people want to avoid it at all costs. However, many people in South Carolina have been exposed to asbestos on at least one occasion.

          Limited exposure to asbestos usually is not a cause for concern. Only a small percentage of people who encounter asbestos only once or twice will become sick as a result. Any risk of mesothelioma or other related diseases is a cause for concern.

          Long-term exposure is more likely to cause illness. For example, men and women who have served or are currently serving in the United States military are at a higher risk for asbestos exposure than the average South Carolina resident. Exposure risk also varies within the military, as veterans who are involved with construction, automotive repair and similar activities are more likely to encounter asbestos.

          Even if a person does not work in an industry that uses asbestos, live in an older building or regularly visit places likely to have asbestos, he or she could still encounter asbestos. Living with someone who was exposed to asbestos makes it much more likely that roommates and family members will be indirectly exposed. Asbestos fibers easily travel on workers’ clothes, hair and skin.

          Developing mesothelioma may feel very unfair to people who have done their best to avoid asbestos exposure. While this can be a normal reaction, victims may still be able to recover compensation for their pain, emotional trauma and financial damages. Even if exposure only occurred once or twice, a victim can pursue a legal claim against the entity that was the source of that exposure.

          Our Experienced Lawyers

          How can we help? Fill out the form for a free case review.

            Contact Us

            Case Types

            Related Posts

            Demolition site cited for second asbestos exposure violation

            People in South Carolina might associate large implosions and wrecking balls with building demolitions. These are not the only options, especially when it comes to buildings that contain asbestos. Demolition may take place over much longer periods of time, such as an out-of-state project that has been going on for at least two years. Unfortunately, it is possible that asbestos exposure to workers and the surrounding area has taken place several times during this time.

            Before the most recent violation, the company in charge of the demolition had already been cited for an asbestos abatement violation at the beginning of 2019. The first violation was for the improper removal of metal siding that contained asbestos, although it does not appear as if the business was fined. Instead, it was strongly encouraged to address the violations and then provide a written response by no later than Dec. 16.

            The most recent violation is in regard to visible emissions from the demolition site. Airborne asbestos fibers are extremely dangerous, so there should not be any dust or other materials released into the air. Officials from an environmental and energy agency in that state later showed up at the demolition site to observe the process. The crew used water to reduce the risk of airborne particles during the observation, but this does not mean that they did so before.

            The company was also cited for several other violations that were not related to asbestos, but this may show an ongoing disregard for safety. There is no room for such lax safety standards when demolishing older buildings that contain asbestos in South Carolina. In fact, disregard for those factors can harm everyone in the vicinity and the surrounding environment. Since asbestos exposure frequently causes victims to develop fatal cancers, documenting known instances of exposure is a very good idea. Those who are not sure what other options they have might find it helpful to speak with an experienced attorney.

            Our Experienced Lawyers

            How can we help? Fill out the form for a free case review.

              Contact Us

              Case Types

              Related Posts

              Illegal storage sites and asbestos exposure

              There are strict rules regarding removing and disposing of asbestos, and they exist for a reason. When disturbed, asbestos particles can easily be released into the air. Inhaling those particles is extremely dangerous, so minimizing the chance of exposure is a good idea. Unfortunately, most people in South Carolina do not even realize they suffered asbestos exposure until they develop related health conditions, such as lung cancer and mesothelioma.

              An out-of-state businessman is currently facing criminal contempt for illegally storing asbestos on his personal property. According to those involved in this situation, the illegal storage site is a health threat to both the environment and the general public. This is not a new problem, though. Authorities first discovered the situation back in 2014. It is unclear how long he had been dumping asbestos on his property prior to then.

              In 2014, the property owner was hit with a $32,000 fine and told that he must remove the asbestos and other waste products from his property, including a trailer the size of 100 cubic yards that was stuffed full of asbestos. However, the man ignored the fines as well as the order to remediate his property. Instead, he continued to use his property as a storage site, adding additional asbestos and other waste over the years.

              Asbestos exposure is usually associated with old buildings, automobile parts and even roofing materials. While this carcinogen can indeed be found in these and many other consumer products, it could also be lurking in other places where it should not be. Improperly maintained or even illegal storage sites in South Carolina could be causing serious health problems for nearby residents. If after being diagnosed with mesothelioma a person is unsure where he or she might have suffered from asbestos exposure, a lawyer experienced in handling related civil claims could offer advice on options for legal recourse.

              Our Experienced Lawyers

              How can we help? Fill out the form for a free case review.

                Contact Us

                Case Types

                Related Posts

                Asbestos exposure is still killing people

                Even though the Environmental Protection Agency has banned most uses of asbestos, it can still be found in both new and old materials, products and more. Since it is no secret that asbestos is a dangerous and carcinogenic substance, industries that still use it should exercise extreme caution to prevent possible exposure. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case. Annually, asbestos exposure kills tens of thousands of people in America.

                Scientists as far back as 1906 began questioning the safety of the mineral asbestos. By 1930, researchers had evidence that a significant portion of the American workforce was suffering from an asbestos-related disease. This information did not do much to change the habits of U.S. companies and manufacturers. In fact, the United States was one of the biggest consumers of asbestos all the way through the late 1980s. Today’s consumers in South Carolina are not much safer either, as asbestos often shows up in automotive parts, toys, cosmetics, construction materials and other consumer products.

                It may come as no surprise to learn that approximately 40,000 Americans die from asbestos diseases each and every year. Mesothelioma is one of the most well-known cancers that asbestos causes, but it is not the only one. South Carolina residents who are exposed to asbestos can also develop lung cancer and asbestosis.

                The average consumer might do everything in his or her power to avoid asbestos, including avoiding products known to contain the substance as well as researching products that are likely to be contaminated. While these are good steps to take, asbestos exposure can take place virtually anywhere, meaning that avoiding it is impossible for most people. This does not mean that a victim who is fighting mesothelioma has to deal with the aftermath by him or herself. Successfully pursuing a claim against the source of the exposure can provide victims with the help they need to cover medical bills, deal with physical damages, emotional trauma and more.

                Our Experienced Lawyers

                How can we help? Fill out the form for a free case review.

                  Contact Us

                  Case Types

                  Related Posts

                  School, a place for learning and asbestos exposure?

                  South Carolina parents send their children to school with the expectation that they will receive a good education in a safe environment. But what if schools are not as safe as they are supposed to be? Children could be unwitting victims of asbestos exposure, which can lead to serious and even fatal health problems in the future.

                  Right now, groups of out-of-state parents are dealing with this exact scenario. In the middle of Sept. 2019, an environmental expert discovered damaged asbestos in one of the schools in his or her area. Despite the well-known dangers of asbestos, the school system did not have the problem examined until a news agency started to investigate the matter in late Oct. 2019.

                  This is not the first time that this particular school district has dealt with asbestos problems. Construction at one of its high schools resulted in contamination that likely exposed many of its 1,000 students to asbestos. One parent in the district reported that he kept his children home from school following these ongoing problems, citing concerns that they could possibly develop cancer in a decade or two.

                  Asbestos can often be found all over older school buildings in South Carolina, and may even show up in things like ceiling and floor tiles in schools that were built more recently. Any asbestos exposure can cause innocent children who are simply trying to get an education to develop devastating illnesses like mesothelioma. When this happens, it might be up to parents to take serious action against negligent school districts.

                  Our Experienced Lawyers

                  How can we help? Fill out the form for a free case review.

                    Contact Us

                    Case Types

                    Related Posts

                    Conflicting findings regarding asbestos exposure from baby powder

                    When a South Carolina parent buys a product for his or her child, there is the assumption that the product will be safe to use and not cause any harm, injury or illness. Over the last few weeks, reports about the possibility of asbestos exposure due to Johnson & Johnson baby powder products has caused major concern for consumers. In response, there was a major recall of this product.

                    Initial testing of the one bottle of the product has found that there was evidence of trace amounts of asbestos in the powder. However, Johnson & Johnson says that the newest tests reveal there is none to be found in the recalled product. This can be confusing for those who simply want to know if the product is safe or if their child could be facing the possibility of illness because of a product marketed to parents.

                    The company says it has done multiple tests through at least two outside companies, and the recalled product had nothing harmful in it. Currently, the company is also dealing with litigation over baby talcum powder. Plaintiffs claim that the product contained asbestos, eventually leading to the development of certain types of cancer. While there have been several substantial verdicts against the company, many have been overturned or are currently being appealed.

                    Asbestos exposure from consumer products is likely grounds for legal action. If a South Carolina person believes that he or she is the victim of this type of harmful exposure, that individual will find it beneficial to take quick action to learn about the legal options available. It may be possible to bring a civil claim against the manufacturer or join ongoing litigation.

                    Our Experienced Lawyers

                    How can we help? Fill out the form for a free case review.

                      Contact Us

                      Case Types

                      Related Posts