top of page

Key Cases

Beasely Allen

J&J's $9 billion talc bankruptcy: Good for plaintiffs, if not their lawyers

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is facing thousands of lawsuits claiming its talcum powder products caused cancer due to asbestos contamination, which the company denies. To resolve these mass-tort claims, J&J has proposed a $9 billion bankruptcy settlement, offering compensation to ovarian cancer plaintiffs over 25 years. While supported by most claimants, the plan faces opposition from some law firms seeking higher payouts through traditional litigation. J&J’s bankruptcy strategy aims to provide quicker and more equitable compensation, but recent legal rulings and dissenting voices complicate its path forward. The case highlights the broader challenges of handling large-scale product liability claims through bankruptcy.

J&J Talc Suit Law Firms Clash Over $6.5 Billion Settlement (2)

In a high-profile legal dispute stemming from Johnson & Johnson's talc litigation, Beasley Allen has filed suit against Smith Law Firm and Porter Malouf, accusing them of breaching a joint venture agreement. Beasley Allen claims the firms owe over $1 million in litigation expenses and that Smith Law is pushing for a controversial $6.5 billion settlement with J&J due to financial pressure from an outside litigation funder. Beasley Allen opposes the settlement, alleging it undermines clients' interests. The case highlights growing tensions among firms as they negotiate compensation for thousands of claimants alleging J&J’s talc products caused cancer.

J&J's proposed talc settlement sparks lawsuit between plaintiffs' firms

In a recent legal development, Beasley Allen has filed a lawsuit against its former joint venture partner, The Smith Law Firm, accusing it of breaching their agreement in ongoing litigation against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) over talc-related cancer claims. The dispute centers on J&J's proposed multibillion-dollar settlement, which aims to resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits through the bankruptcy of a subsidiary. Beasley Allen alleges that Smith reneged on their partnership, pursuing a separate deal with J&J to cover debts and secure quicker payments, undermining joint clients' interests. The case raises tensions over how plaintiffs' firms navigate complex mass tort settlements. Read more in the original article by Dietrich Knauth.

Attorneys Vow to Oppose J&J’s Third Bankruptcy Attempt

In September 2024, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) filed a pre-packaged bankruptcy in Texas to address claims from thousands of women alleging ovarian cancer linked to its talc products. Attorneys for the claimants opposed the filing, asserting it was a strategic move to manipulate the bankruptcy process and reduce compensation for victims. They raised concerns about the legitimacy of the voting process, claiming that votes from individuals without valid claims were included to create false support. The proposed compensation was deemed insufficient compared to the significant medical costs and lost wages faced by victims. Drawing on a recent Supreme Court ruling against Purdue Pharma, attorneys argued that solvent companies should not exploit bankruptcy to evade liability. This case highlights critical ethical questions regarding J&J's tactics and the potential for victims to receive fair compensation.

J&J tries to push talc bankruptcy over the line once again

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is making a renewed attempt to resolve thousands of lawsuits alleging that its talc products caused cancer through a third bankruptcy filing for its subsidiary, Red River Talc LLC. This strategic maneuver aims to create a settlement fund totaling $8 billion over 25 years, with J&J claiming that around 83% of the 60,000-plus claimants support this plan, exceeding the 75% threshold required for bankruptcy confirmation. The litigation centers primarily on claims related to ovarian and other gynecological cancers, as victims allege that J&J's talc products contained asbestos. While J&J maintains that the plan is equitable and beneficial for all parties involved, critics argue that it could shield the company from future claims and undercompensate victims. The case is currently being heard in a bankruptcy court in Houston, amid ongoing controversy and skepticism from plaintiff advocates.

J&J's talc plan gains supporter, which gets him sued by Beasley Allen

In a pivotal turn in Johnson & Johnson's talc litigation, attorney Allen Smith has shifted to support the company's revised settlement proposal, which includes an additional $1 billion to resolve claims that its talcum powder caused cancer. Smith, who filed the first talc exposure lawsuit 15 years ago, joins over 75% of ovarian-cancer claimants in backing a plan for a $9 billion settlement over 25 years. This proposal aims to expedite compensation for strong claims while alleviating the burden of lengthy court trials. However, it faces opposition from Beasley Allen, a law firm representing thousands of claimants, which argues that the settlement is inadequate and has filed suit against Smith's firm. This case highlights the complexities of mass tort claims and the quest for timely justice for cancer victims.

bottom of page