11–20 of 336 posts
Overall Where there's money to be made there usually is shenanigans. That's goes for both sides.
This will be an interesting one to follow. J&J may have a case but could also just be a case of supressing bad news. The original study had a very small sample size (33 people), which one could argue would be small enough to dismiss. Are there any larger follow up studies?
> Moline published an article in 2019 studying 33 patients who said their only exposure to asbestos came from talc products, and Emory, Kradin and Maddox followed up with a 2020 study of 75 similar patients.
> All four doctors have provided expert testimony in lawsuits against J&J, and their research has been cited in lawsuits where they have not testified, according to the complaints.
> LTL said the researchers concealed the fact that some or all of the patients involved in their studies had been exposed to asbestos from other sources.
If the only thing they used to exclude non-talc exposures was asking the study participants, that seems pretty weak science. And their income depended on not digging too deeply for other exposures.
"Junk science" is a charitable description of what was perpetrated in those studies.
Cancer.org has a page on talc[0] and from it:
> Studies of personal use of talcum powder have had mixed results, although there is some suggestion of a possible increase in ovarian cancer risk. There is very little evidence at this time that any other forms of cancer are linked with consumer use of talcum powder.
> Until more information is available, people who are concerned about possible links between talcum powder and cancer may choose to avoid or limit their use of consumer products that contain it.
Seems like more studies are needed for the consumer level.
[0] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talc...
Is it possible Johnson and Johnson have been maligned? I'm not an advocate, I'd be interested in seeing significant evidence that their product causes cancer. However, I'd like to see a firm distinction between talc and talc contaminated with asbestos. The link with asbestos and cancer is clear. I'm not convinced of the problem with talc powder.
Apropos of anything else, J&J's handling of this has been despicable. Creating an entity specifically to pick up all of the related liabilities, picking up those liabilities and then (exact count may be wrong, but it's very close) literally filing for bankruptcy within the space of three days. The Texas two-step, as it's called. > In 2021, the company spun off its liabilities into a new entity called LTL Management u…
How is this effective? Wouldn’t the creditors pierce the corporate veil of this obviously transparent and self-serving setup?
Apropos of anything else, J&J's handling of this has been despicable. Creating an entity specifically to pick up all of the related liabilities, picking up those liabilities and then (exact count may be wrong, but it's very close) literally filing for bankruptcy within the space of three days. The Texas two-step, as it's called. > In 2021, the company spun off its liabilities into a new entity called LTL Management u…
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-l...
The idea here was that a bankruptcy judge could more fairly distribute $61.5 billion dollars among claimants than having them sue J&J one at a time and getting uneven awards and costing everyone more lawyer hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this effective? Wouldn’t the creditors pierce the corporate veil of this obviously transparent and self-serving setup?
OP is spinning this as an attempt by J&J to escape paying out the liability which it wasn’t - Matt Levine (of course!) explains the details here: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-l...
Scratching the surface on talc, it's difficult to determine what should/should-not be done. Cancer.org has a page on talc[0] and from it: > Studies of personal use of talcum powder have had mixed results, although there is some suggestion of a possible increase in ovarian cancer risk. There is very little evidence at this time that any other forms of cancer are linked with consumer use of talcum powder. > Until more…
Apropos of anything else, J&J's handling of this has been despicable. Creating an entity specifically to pick up all of the related liabilities, picking up those liabilities and then (exact count may be wrong, but it's very close) literally filing for bankruptcy within the space of three days. The Texas two-step, as it's called. > In 2021, the company spun off its liabilities into a new entity called LTL Management u…
It was not avoiding liability at all.
The court that dismissed the claim in general agreed with J&J's process, but said it was too early.
Some key quote from Levine:
> Juries in the US don’t like it when companies make products that kill people, and they tend to award enormous damages in cases like that. You multiply enormous damages by lots of cases, and you can easily end up with damages that exceed the value of the company. This can lead to unfair results, not for you — who cares about you — but for your victims: If a $1 billion company has killed 100 people, the first 10 who sue might get $100 million each of damages, leaving nothing for the remaining 90.
> one pretty practical approach [to how to solve this problem] is bankruptcy. This, after all, is what bankruptcy is for: It is a system to make sure that creditors are all paid fairly out of the assets of a company, rather than paying some creditors a lot because they are early and others nothing because they are too late.
> Bankruptcy courts are run by judges, who are bankruptcy professionals and who are used to dealing with companies that are, you know, bankrupt. They are used to not having enough money to go around; they are not temperamentally lavish with claims.
> That is, LTL — the box where J&J put its talc claims — could draw at least $61.5 billion from J&J to pay off those claims. The point here, the bankruptcy court concluded, was not to keep J&J from having to pay talc claims; the entire value of J&J’s consumer business was still on the line for those claims.
> But the Third Circuit disagreed, not because it thinks that the bankruptcy court is a bad place to resolve claims, and not because it thinks that J&J is avoiding liability with the Texas two-step, but because LTL isn’t bankrupt enough
> In some ways this is a sensible reading of the bankruptcy code, but it is a little bit of a weird result. The point of doing any of this is to do it early, before you are out of money, so that you have plenty of money to pay all the claimants fairly. The court realizes this awkwardness
> You don’t have to be insolvent to file for bankruptcy, and it is good to file early, but not prematurely. You want to file for bankruptcy while you still have plenty of money to pay claims, but not too much money.
Read the whole article. It's good!