21 ms·
Johnson and Johnson reaches deal for $8.9B talc settlement
- geoah 4y agohttps://archive.ph/MLG64 https://archive.ph/MLG64
- ceejayoz 4y ago> Johnson & Johnson created LTL in 2021 in a maneuver to shield itself from the talc litigation, but an earlier bankruptcy filing by the unit was challenged by the plaintiffs and dismissed this year by a U.S. appeals court, which ruled that a bankruptcy wasn’t the right way to resolve the matter. I'm extremely glad this tactic failed.
- jjulius 4y ago[flagged]
- enragedcacti 4y agoAlso wild is that this tactic won Allison Brown the "Litigator of the Year" award from American Lawyer. Truly a cursed profession in a lot of ways. https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022/11/22/litigator-of-the-year-skaddens-allison-brown-achieves-success-against-all-odds/ https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022/11/22/litigator-of-t...
- goldfeld 4y agoI would have named the award "The Year of the Alligator".
- mjklin 4y agoOf course alligators don’t eat lawyers. Professional courtesy.
- staticautomatic 4y agoHer performance as a trial lawyer in these cases has been nothing short of average. It’s shocking that she managed to eek out any defense verdicts at all in the underlying litigation.
- phone8675309 4y agoPeople like this should be hung from a light post and beaten with sticks as a warning to the rest of them that this shit will not be tolerated.
- infamouscow 4y agoThat's how society handled snakes and demons for most of human history. It's arguable societal decline stems from moving away from this approach.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoBe carefull what you wish for, I can see a few startup founders will be ranking high as candidates for the same treatment.
- infamouscow 4y agoIf the law is the primary obstacle preventing the majority from beating unscrupulous CEOs to within an inch of their life, then perhaps the majority should consider passing legislation that permits this as the current set of laws has abjectly failed.
- HWR_14 4y agoThis tactic wasn't as bad as you imply. J&J put the greater of $61.5 billion or the value of its consumer division (as determined when the paperwork was done) in LTL to cover claims and added itself as a creditor in last place. The idea was they would get back any value less than that after a result of the bankruptcy. In this case, they would have recovered over $50 billion from the bankrupt company after the suit was paid off (assuming this deal covers all parties).
- ceejayoz 4y agoYou'd only go to that extra work and complexity if you believed it would potentially be beneficial. Presumably, they feared the possibility of a multi-hundred billion dollar verdict. That they didn't need the tactic in the end doesn't make it any less sleazy to have attempted it.
- HWR_14 4y agoLike I said, I don't actually think it protects more money. It was pretty much secured by the value of the subsidiary responsible. On the contrary, doing that much extra work and complexity pays off mostly in organizational ways. Letting the current business operate without overly worrying about the progress of the trial (instead just having value removed by it), managing multiple plaintiffs, etc. And if the total amount of lawsuits exceeds the value of the company, it prevents the earlier plaintiffs from getting 100% and the last plaintiffs from getting 0% (which results in more expensive lawsuits).
- ceejayoz 4y ago> It was pretty much secured by the value of the subsidiary responsible. Which is less than the value of all of J&J, which should all be at risk for egregious misconduct. > And if the total amount of lawsuits exceeds the value of the company, it prevents the earlier plaintiffs from getting 100% and the last plaintiffs from getting 0% (which results in more expensive lawsuits). Sure, but it prevents everyone from getting what they should get from J&J in that scenario.
- samstave 4y ago>talctic
- jjulius 4y agoI was downvoted and flagged for the same thing, so, at the risk of a Reddit-esque comment, have my upvote.
- jjulius 4y agoY'all need to chuckle more.
- samstave 4y agoz\\One of my favorite things about my love, is our love of 'chuckling One of the things which draw us closer to each other is how we are able to make each other chuckle with stupid jokes. Its a wonderful practice, you should give it a try. >>This comment brought to you by Wheeties, Titie Whitites and 1955
- samstave 4y agoIm getting ban-hammered for my (same as yours) pun. I hate people that hate puns, because they are not Norwegian.
- makerofspoons 4y agoThis tactic is called a "Texas two-step", and it was used successfully by Georgia-Pacific in another asbestos related situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy
- pgodzin 4y agoworth reading Matt Levine's explanation of this: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-levine-johnson-johnson-s-jnj-bankruptcy-didn-t-work https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-l...
- DangitBobby 4y agoOff topic but what AMC is doing is definitely fraud.
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoDo we know if this settlement is actually significant in incentivizing J&J to never pull this shit again?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dylan604 4y agoThe fact that they continue to sell the product in other countries suggests "no".
- justrealist 4y agoNot really accurate. The problem was the contamination, not the Talc. They have changed the process to remove the asbestos contamination, but have gone a step further in the US, out of risk-aversion, to replace the Talc with cornstarch entirely.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoAll talc is associated with asbestos. You can't remove it all, only choose mines with lesser proportion.
- fauxpause_ 4y agoThe product is not the problem. It is a useful product when it meets quality controls.
- Maximus9000 4y agoIt looks like about 6 months of net income. That's pretty big but not huge. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/JNJ/johnson-johnson/net-income https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/JNJ/johnson-johnso...
- fauxpause_ 4y agoThat’s huge.
- zerr 4y agoDid they change the ingredients for the Talc? Because it is still on sale. From other brands as well.
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoBaby powder is usually corn starch now.
- orra 4y agoIn the US! J&J Baby Powder in the UK is still talcum powder... Edit: I now see that'll be phased out, later this year https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-consumer-health-to-transition-global-baby-powder-portfolio-to-cornstarch https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-consumer-health-to-trans...
- refurb 4y agoI’ve been stocking up. Just don't be stupid and inhale it (which is bad for you asbestos or not asbestos). Corn starch as a replacement sucks compared to talc.
- teknolog 4y agoSort of makes you wonder if the corn lobby was funneling money to this lawsuit. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but you never know.
- starkd 4y agoDon't know if that is the case here, but that possibility cannot be discounted. It is a definite pattern for litigation attorneys. Studies can be easily manufactured.
- f6v 4y ago> Studies can be easily manufactured. Studies can be replicated(or failed to do so) by a company the size of J&J.
- shortrounddev 4y agoYears ago I worked for a company that made a propaganda site for J&J about their Talc lawsuits https://www.factsabouttalc.com/ https://www.factsabouttalc.com/ The company liked to do a lot of performative charity events to convince ourselves that we weren't having a net negative impact on the world catering to some of the most vile corporate clients on the planet
- jacquesm 4y agoWere you convinced?
- shortrounddev 4y agoNo, I developed an e-commerce site for blood diamond traffickers
- carlmr 4y agoAnd it's still online?
- shortrounddev 4y ago"Years ago" means 3 years ago
- boeingUH60 4y agoI'm curious how much they billed for that site because it looks pretty simple to create. I do hope they billed J&J for the maximum billable amount.
- pbj1968 4y agoRight or wrong, when you’re publishing websites like that you’ve already lost.
- littlestymaar 4y agoIs there a criminal case in addition to the civil one? With the C-suites being prosecuted in person for hiding the truth they new and leading to the death of people, or is that wishful thinking?
- ch4s3 4y agoThe actual evidence of asbestos in the products is from decades ago, and the current executives were not involved. There likely isn't enough evidence of contamination in the product since the 1990s to hold anyone criminally liable. Evidentiary standards in civil cases are FAR lower.
- littlestymaar 4y ago> and the current executives were not involved That's part of the point actually, some of the people in charge at the time are probably still alive and would deserve to be brought to a court…
- ch4s3 4y agoIf they even knew.
- unwind 4y agoI'm glad I've only seen this product in media, seems to not be a thing here in Sweden. I feel sorry for the people who have been hurt, of course. What crap.
- somenameforme 4y agoFor context Johnson and Johnson's total revenue for 2022 was $94.94 billion [1], and this settlement is to be paid out over 25 years. So the total cost to them is about 1.3 days of revenue per year at their current revenue levels. Factor in inflation and growth, and it'll end up being a few hours of revenue per year. More hard hitting justice for corporate malfeasance. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_&_Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_&_Johnson
- lumb63 4y agoIt’s sad to me that situations where companies cause negative outcomes for people are paid for by fees and are labeled “the cost of doing business”. I saw a post here the other day that said that, rather than releasing products and later the burden be on others to prove they are unsafe, the burden should be on companies to ensure their products are safe prior to releasing them to the public. Money does not solve issues; you can compensate people for the cost of their cancer treatments, etc., but I’m sure they’d probably rather never have had cancer to begin with. The wrong can’t be retroactively undone.
- changoplatanero 4y ago> the burden should be on companies to ensure their products are safe prior to releasing them to the public I don't know if this policy would make the world a better place. There are so many life saving or life improving technologies that would be delayed because of the burden of proving them to be "safe"
- simmerup 4y ago> the burden should be on companies to ensure their products are safe prior to releasing them to the public I suspect big companies would love to stifle the competition from small competitors who can’t afford to sink money into this type of analysis
- candiddevmike 4y agoSounds good to me, stifle away. Move fast and break things doesn't fit in with consumer safety.
- MR4D 4y agoLots of people here are focusing on the size of the deal, which is admittedly large. However, the terms are just as important.... FTA - "The proposed settlement would be paid out over 25 years" Inflation alone will wipe a big chunk of that value. Evan at 3% inflation, they will save over 2.5 billion in real dollar terms.
- Etherlord87 4y agoI imagine the settlement considers inflation and corrects for inflation, unless the 8.9 B is already based on some prediction of future inflation.
- Narkov 4y agoThis makes sense to me and might just need some context. My grandfather died from mesothelioma - a dust based disease caused, in his case, by asbestos. As a 20/30 year old plumber, he was using asbestos products without any protection as it was assumed to be safe. Later in life, he developed mesothelioma which effectively causes your lungs to fail. These diseases develop over time so there are claims that are unknown at this point in time but will appear in the future. It makes sense for a fund to be set up to cover future claims.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- web3-is-a-scam 4y agoThis settlement is a joke, clearly Big Pharma owns America.
- last_responder 4y agoBig pharma owns John Deere?
- lostlogin 4y agoThat’s Big Farmer.
- NhanH 4y agoIf I might have played with baby powder when I was a kid around 1996-1997, and I might even inhaled or huffed it (no way to remember now, I was 6 years old), how concern should I be?
- treis 4y agoThe smallest amount of concern possible. The scientific record is mixed. Some studies find a small effect and others find no statistically significant link. Worst case scenario is 5ish additional cases of ovarian cancer in 100,000 people. AFAIK no link has been shown between lung cancer and talc. Likely none exists. Lung cancer links to stuff like Asbestos is limited to people like miners and factory workers who breathed the stuff in all day every day for decades. But generally speaking particulates are linked to lung cancer and other lung issues. Probably best to not breathe in clouds of the stuff but I wouldn't worry about normal usage.
- NhanH 4y agoMy concern would be mostly on the issue of asbestos contamination. I tried to find if there is any known contamination issue in the 90s, but my google-fu got nothing.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoThese lawsuits are from people who developed ovarian cancer after regularly using talcum powder for years or decades. Maybe your youthful use of talcum powder gave you an ever so slightly higher chance of developing lung cancer, but it's generally regular exposure that causes problems. I wouldn't be concerned.
- bcoates 4y agoBrake pads were made of, not just possibly-contaminated-with, asbestos in that era, so assuming you lived somewhere with cars it wouldn't be a significant source. (but don't inhale rocks, they are bad for your lungs)
- nop_slide 4y ago
- user3939382 4y agoThe courts aren’t there to punish giant multinational corporations, they’re there to protect their interests. Google “chevron donziger” if you have any doubt about that. In most cases the corporations or their lobby groups are writing the laws that regulate them. They literally write the bills and hand them to congress to pass.
- samstave 4y agoThis might sound stupid, but we need a "blockchain for bills" that keeps track of every single human who made edits and authored each and every law - and if it sucks, hold the actual human beings accountable for stupid laws. At least give them a public shaming, if we cant find them criminally responsible.
- arco1991 4y agoThis..
- mikewarot 4y agoWhen can we get real talc powder again? Corn starch really doesn't work. It's like modern Saran wrap, not anywhere as good as the original.
- unsupp0rted 4y agoI didn't know Saran Wrap had changed. Why did they get rid of the original?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mikewarot 4y agoAccording to this[1], it changed in 2004 (in the US) More info about Saran wrap[2]. It's effectively 3000x more permeable to Oxygen that the old version. [1] https://uspackagingandwrapping.com/plastic-wrap-101.html#:~:text=The%20original%20plastic%20wrap%20that,alternatives%20have%20become%20more%20popular https://uspackagingandwrapping.com/plastic-wrap-101.html#:~:.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saran_(plastic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saran_(plastic)
- wombatpm 4y agoThe Saran trade name was first owned by Dow Chemical for polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), along with other monomers. The formulation was changed to the less effective polyethylene in 2004 due to the chlorine content of PVDC.
- whiddershins 4y agowait, what? Chlorine isn't that bad a substance.
- rootusrootus 4y ago> When can we get real talc powder again? My guess is it'll never make a comeback. You can still get it, but maybe not in the formulation you used to get. I can't imagine too many companies willing to risk another class action just to make a few of us happier. Add it to the ever growing list of things we've had to give up on the altars of lawyers and social media.
- hilbert42 4y agoWe see repeatedly in such cases that employees, especially so executives, have known about the dangers of a product often for years and rather than take action to withdraw it they cover over and hide the facts—witness the tobacco industry. This problem could almost certainly be put to rest if not only the companies were held responsible but equally so their employees. If employees knew life imprisonment was a likely outcome for their 'silence' things would almost certainly change. This is obvious, what is not is why governments repeatedly fail to implement such legislation. That is, why is commerce so effective at being able to block governments from legislating thus?
- chii 4y ago> equally so their employees. If employees knew life imprisonment was a likely outcome for their 'silence' things would almost certainly change. They would choose to not work. In fact, no-one would be under that rule. Liability must stop somewhere, and it stops at the corporate charter. Otherwise the risk is too great for any employee, to be held personally liable for actions of the company, but don't get the rewards, or call shots.
- hilbert42 4y ago"They would choose to not work." I simply do not believe that. If the rules are set correctly and everyone understands them then it's easy to work within those rules. For example, everyone knows not to fiddle the company's books—if one does and is caught then tough, one suffers the consequences. Let's be clear about this, we're not talking about genuine mistakes or unforseen consequences, force majeure/Act of God or such but deliberate coverups when evidence of problems presents itself. The rules would be simple, anyone who became aware of a dangerous issue would be liable to report it and be strongly protected at law from retribution by vindictive management. I would add this would be no different to Occupational Health and Safety law that already exists in many jurisdictions. __ Edit: such laws would also be framed to avoid unnecessary damage to a company's reputation from trivial or even vindictive actions by wayward employees. Ways of reporting—both within a company and to government agencies—to ensure companies don't suffer undue harm already exist in some existing and proposed whistleblower legislation. They could easily be adopted.
- rootusrootus 4y agoThis case has been interesting from the start, given how weak the scientific evidence was. Has anyone improved on that, proving a causal link? This settlement sounds like J&J just trying to get the witch hunt to quit bleeding them. Which I suppose describes most corporate settlements, but still.
- boredhedgehog 4y agoGiven that there are distinct demographics that use this powder disproportionately (e.g. professional gymnasts and climbers), shouldn't an increased cancer rate be very visible?
- nickff 4y agoI think you're mixing up chalk and talc. Climbers use chalk to increase friction; parents use talc to reduce friction.
- themagician 4y agoThe demographic that was harmed disproportionately was actually women, poor black women in the south in particular. There were campaigns that promoted talc as a way for poor women to "stay fresh" for cheap. You'd line your panties with it. It was common, and something that was often done for decades starting at a very young age. This use case is the where the link between talc exposure and ovarian cancer comes from.
- bitcoinmoney 4y agoSource? We used talc on babies in 3rd world country for the same reason.
- ensan2 4y agoWhat do you mean witch hunt? > Johnson & Johnson executives knew for decades about the risk of asbestos exposure linked to its talc products, including the famous baby powder > Asbestos was first linked to ovarian cancer in 1958. > In October, Johnson & Johnson recalled 33,000 bottles of baby powder after the Food and Drug Administration said it discovered evidence of chrysotile asbestos in a bottle There is no need to establish scientific evidence for every single decision--in this case the causal link is already there (not to mention, who would fund a long term study on this?); it's just common sense (and knowledge) to assume long-term exposure to products containing carcinogens can elevate risk of cancer. Of course these corporations would never voluntarily admit to any wrongdoings. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/business/media/johnson-johnson-talc-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/business/media/johnson-jo...
- humaniania 4y agoWhat about all of the people internationally who were impacted by this? If American companies are distributing dangerous products overseas they should be held to full account for that as well.
- throwayyy479087 4y ago[flagged]
- smabie 4y agoWhat does current CEO have to do with any of this?
- amrb 4y agoRemember this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
- than3 4y agoThis does nothing to punish the corporate malfeasance of acting as an expert for the government, knowing better, and then lying by recommending less effective testing to preserve and maximize your own profits over the safety of every citizen using your products for decades.
- jcampbell1 4y agoWhen did HackerNews get so hysterical. The evidence for talc causing ovarian cancer is extremely weak, maybe 5 additional cases per 100,000 women at worst. It makes no damn sense as a cervix only allows anything to head inside about 1 day per month. Are dudes getting testicular cancer from talc powder traveling up their pee hole? Gametes are like stem cells and prone to cancer forming mutations. It seems like all the undersexed white knights are ruling the attitudes of the day.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoDesire to crucify any and all entities for even the tiniest bit of fault or risk is handicapping the US economy. So much of the US GDP is about avoiding liability and nailing someone with liability. See the recent thread about pharmacies having to pay huge fines for dispensing opioids as prescribed by a doctor. So now, pharmacies simply will not dispense them. People lose the freedom to get opioids for legitimate use, governments get plausible deniability they did something, and all for the political show of holding someone responsible.
- whiddershins 4y agoI have a feeling talc probably wasn't actually bad for you.
- knodi123 4y ago"Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder" https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
- neilv 4y ago> If a bankruptcy court approves it, the agreement will resolve all current and future claims involving Johnson & Johnson products that contain talc, such as baby powder, the company said. When people later (inevitably) discover they got lung cancer, and it's traced to Johnsons & Johnsons Baby Asbestos, can they still sue J&J?
- neilv 4y agoWhat percentage of the top of the J&J org chart is spending the rest of their lives in prison, for putting asbestos into the air of baby nurseries in the 21st century?
- notsosec 4y agoIt's good that all the bad people at J&J were working in the talc division, while the selfless honest people who never cheat or lie worked on the COVID vaccine.