Beasley Allen, Levin Papantonio, and coalition of law firms cite misleading efforts to secure approval

Thousands of individuals who are being told they may be eligible for quick and significant compensation from a proposed $6.5 billion bankruptcy settlement offered by Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) are being misled, according to other attorneys who represent ovarian cancer victims.

“We believe there is an ongoing effort to attract approvals for J&J’s third attempt at bankruptcy from those without a documented and diagnosed claim of ovarian cancer,” says Andy Birchfield of the Beasley Allen Law Firm.

“While individuals may have a gynecological illness or other medical condition, we don’t believe those votes should be used as part of a bankruptcy effort to coercively resolve ovarian cancer claims linked to Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder. Other claims may involve a serious condition, but we fear they are only being used to stuff the ballot box.”

Under a pre-packaged bankruptcy, 75% of the plaintiffs or creditors must approve the proposed plan before it can be filed. Two previous bankruptcy plans filed by J&J and its affiliates have been denied by the courts because they were filed in bad faith.

Birchfield and attorneys from more than 50 law firms opposing J&J’s voting scheme believe that the solicitation for “yes” votes is being used to create a false basis for a bankruptcy that could reduce payments to their clients, who have incurred individual losses and expenses of $500,000 or more in battling the disease.

“J&J is aware that the thousands of fantasy cases they are submitting to bankruptcy make it almost impossible for actual injured clients to recover,” says Mike Papantonio of Levin Papantonio.

Employing an at-times desperate strategy, J&J has attacked its former customers who have filed lawsuits, labeling them “nameless” and “faceless.” “This is a profoundly insulting statement to make about the very customers who trusted the company,” says Birchfield. “Thousands of women – mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts & cousins, whose lives have been upended by ovarian cancer linked to J&J’s talc products.”

Video: Victims Speak Out

Scores of women have described their pain in videos as they have battled ovarian cancer and opposed the bankruptcy plan on principle.

“These are real people who have suffered solely because of the deceit of Johnson & Johnson,” says Richard Golomb of Golomb Legal. “Under J&J’s plan, there is no basis to know how much a client would be paid or when, but it’s logical that accepting an extraordinarily large number of claims would reduce the benefit available to all.

“A few thousand dollars is not justifiable for an individual with a legitimate and longstanding medical diagnosis of ovarian cancer, but that’s what the math of this proposal demonstrates.”

The deadline for voting to approve or decline the bankruptcy proposal is 5 p.m. ET on July 26, 2024.

Attorneys opposing the J&J plan also note that approval would take away all rights to a jury trial for current and future ovarian cancer victims. Since 2016, juries have awarded collectively more than $5.4 billion in compensatory and punitive damages to ovarian cancer claimants. Although that total has been subsequently reduced by courts at the trial and appellate level, those reductions have not been based on the merits of the underlying cases.

“We welcome any individuals and their attorneys to file claims, with the required medical records and pathology reports, in the ongoing multidistrict litigation for ovarian cancer cases,” says Michelle Parfitt, co-lead counsel of the plaintiffs’ committee over more than 50,000 plaintiffs whose claims were previously consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL) in federal court. “The MDL, and civil courts in general, still provide the most fair and efficient means of trying and resolving these cases, with the first bellwether trial scheduled for December.”

“Those trials have been delayed solely due to J&J’s gamesmanship, desire to avoid trials, and repeated and unsuccessful attempts to claim bankruptcy for a company valued at nearly $400 billion, says Leigh O’Dell, co-lead counsel of the plaintiffs’ committee in the MDL litigation. “It’s a scheme with direct parallels to that attempted by Purdue Pharmaceuticals, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned.”

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240722309512/en/