Judge refuses to disqualify leading opponents of J&J's talc bankruptcy plan
Adds comment from J&J
By Brendan Pierson
July 19 (Reuters) -A New Jersey judge on Friday rebuffed Johnson & Johnson's JNJ.N bid to disqualify the law firm Beasley Allen from representing plaintiffs claiming they got cancer from the company's talc, a setback for the company as it tries to resolve more than 60,000 such claims for $6.48 billion through a pre-packaged bankruptcy plan.
Judge John Porto of the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that J&J had not presented "any credible basis" for its claims that Beasley Allen partner Andy Birchfield formed an unethical alliance with one of the company's former lawyers.
Also on Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah Singh, who is overseeing talc cases pending in New Jersey federal court, ordered J&J to show cause why she should not adopt Porto's findings as well as she considers a parallel motion to disqualify the firm from the federal cases.
"It's gratifying that the state court found that as individuals, and on behalf of our firm, we can continue to seek justice for the thousands of women and families whose lives have been devastated by J&J's talc-based powders," Birchfield said in a statement.
Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, in a statement said that the company "will appeal the trial court's ruling that it is not an ethical violation for plaintiffs' counsel to knowingly and surreptitiously collaborate with defendants' former counsel on the same matter, same claims and same issues that the former counsel represented the defendants."
J&J has denied plaintiffs' claims that its talc is tainted with cancer-causing asbestos, saying the product is safe.
In its December motions to disqualify Beasley Allen, J&J claimed that Birchfield acted unethically by working with former Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath partner James Conlan, who worked on the talc litigation for the company for about two years before leaving legal practice in 2022, to propose an out-of-bankruptcy settlement.
The company said Conlan must have disclosed confidential information, but Porto said there was no evidence for that.
J&J is currently soliciting votes in support of its plan, which would require support from 75% of claimants. A deadline on voting is set for next Friday.
Two previous efforts to settle the case in bankruptcy were rejected by courts, but J&J has said it is confident in its strategy.
In re Talc-based powder products litigation, MCL No. 300, Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County
For J&J: Stephen Brody of O’Melveny & Myers
For Beasley Allen: Jeffrey Pollock of Fox Rothschild
(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York)
</body></html>Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
