by sndean on 7/17/23, 1:14 AM with 317 comments
by FireBeyond on 7/17/23, 2:27 AM
The Texas two-step, as it's called.
> In 2021, the company spun off its liabilities into a new entity called LTL Management under a strategy called the “Texas two-step.” That legal but controversial approach allows a solvent parent company to protect its assets by creating a subsidiary to hold its liabilities — and then having the new company declare bankruptcy, as LTL did just days after incorporating. Critics complain it’s an abuse of the bankruptcy system and allows companies facing massive litigation to dodge corporate responsibility.
> The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia dismissed the bankruptcy filing in January, finding LTL was not in financial distress and had “no valid bankruptcy purpose.”
> But hours after that case was formally dismissed in April, LTL filed for bankruptcy protection again, this time with a higher settlement proposal of $8.9 billion.
The fact that this is legal is such a mockery of consumer protection law.
by codelord on 7/17/23, 7:49 AM
I hope this is not as bad in medicine and health related research. But just thinking that some paper can be used against you in court to claim billions of dollars in damages makes me uneasy. Peer reviewed paper != science. Peer review is a crude filter on research that can both accept bad work and reject good work. There must be a higher bar for something that can be used in the court of law. Some sort of scientific consensus must be needed at least.
It's easy to dismiss this because screw J&J. But I think we are all paying for these lawsuits through our insurances and taxes and higher drug prices.
Not saying these lawsuits don't have merits, but I think there must be a higher bar for what is presented as evidence.
by asdfasgasdgasdg on 7/17/23, 2:50 AM
These researchers have gained materially from the output of their research (expert witnesses do not testify for free). Of course if the lawsuit is baseless then it is an evil distraction but the mere act of suing researchers is not, on its face, a problem.
by irjustin on 7/17/23, 2:58 AM
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...
by SapporoChris on 7/17/23, 3:00 AM
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.
by NovaDudely on 7/17/23, 2:07 AM
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?
by 10g1k on 7/17/23, 3:26 AM
Scientists = personal liabilities.
Even the threat of losing one's credibility and career for daring to publish science which might possibly harm corporate profits is a horrible thing.
by NoZebra120vClip on 7/17/23, 2:58 AM
"Junk science" is a charitable description of what was perpetrated in those studies.
by sesuximo on 7/17/23, 3:55 PM
- J&J made useful products that may have been problematic according to cutting edge research. Now they are broke and fighting tons of litigation. And they are acting shady in court (thx to their lawyers/management, not their researchers no doubt).
- Researchers did cutting edge work on a relevant topic. Now they are getting sued.
- a load of people are suing J&J after choosing to buy their products. I’m sure some of the plaintiffs have real tough situations and some are motivated by greed/pushy lawyers. These people might get paid.
- the lawyers who did no cutting edge work and made no useful products are getting paid
- regular folk might have to pay more for j&j products
Few winners, and not the winners I would have wanted
by NoZebra120vClip on 7/17/23, 4:23 AM
I don't really want to think about the mechanism by which talc induces weight loss along with the active ingredient.
by nubinetwork on 7/17/23, 2:56 AM
by macinjosh on 7/17/23, 2:42 PM
My assumption is they determined this first $65 billion will be enough to make the problem go away. Claimants will get a big check, but not big enough to launch further litigation to get more out of the company.
IMO, this is solving a problem that does not exist. If one or two initial claimants were to clean out the whole company then subsequent claimants could sue them for their share, or the courts could step in and enforce a class-action.
by dcow on 7/17/23, 7:28 AM
by dreamcompiler on 7/17/23, 4:56 AM
1. We need a federal anti-SLAPP law.
2. Discovery is a bitch, J&J.
by amelius on 7/17/23, 8:11 AM
by anothernewdude on 7/17/23, 12:12 PM
by xwdv on 7/17/23, 3:01 PM
by andsoitis on 7/17/23, 1:44 PM
by RcouF1uZ4gsC on 7/17/23, 2:16 AM
An overview is at
by verisimi on 7/17/23, 7:30 AM
I thought Johnson & Johnson was one of the good corporations and would accept and honour its obligations.
And that science has the truth to tell us what right or wrong, not a court.
And that the law system would deliver justice.
I'm just so amazed.
by paul7986 on 7/17/23, 2:57 AM
Overall Where there's money to be made there usually is shenanigans. That's goes for both sides.