1 ) TALC
By the end of 2020 , talc appeared to be moving toward resolution , but in 2021 rumors of potential legal maneuvering rang true , causing a shift in the proceedings .
Lawsuits accusing Johnson & Johnson (“ J & J ”) of manufacturing , designing , selling and distributing cancercausing talcum powder products began in 2007 . Now , over 37,000 claims alone are pending in the federal multidistrict litigation (“ MDL ”), In re : Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing , Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation , MDL No . 2738 , in the District of New Jersey .
In the earlier stages of litigation , J & J released a statement asserting that “ Consumers can be assured that more than 40 years of independent scientific evaluations confirm that Johnson ’ s Baby Powder is safe , does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer .”
Despite these assurances by the company , on October 18 , 2019 , J & J voluntarily recalled 33,000 bottles of its baby powder after a U . S . Food and Drug Administration test revealed evidence of asbestos in one bottle . Later , in May 2020 , J & J announced it would permanently halt production of its controversial talc-based baby powder products in the North American market . The company indicated , however , that the decision was made for economic reasons and not tied to the product safety concerns alleged in the lawsuits .
Soon thereafter , in October 2020 , it was reported that J & J reached an over $ 100 million settlement of 1,000 talc cases , prompting some to believe the company could be on the verge of resolving a vast majority of claims pending against it .
However , in 2021 , a rumor emerged that J & J was contemplating a legal maneuver known as the “ Texas twostep ” instead . The “ Texas two-step ” has been employed by corporations to transfer certain liabilities to a new entity , which then files for bankruptcy protection .
In early October 2021 , parties saw those rumors ring true . J & J created subsidiary , LTL Management , LLC (“ LTL ”) as part of a corporate restructuring . In the move , all liabilities associated with talc-related claims were transferred to LTL . Two days after formation in North Carolina , LTL filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy . LTL acknowledged that the restructuring was executed to allow for LTL to “ resolve talc-related claims through a chapter 11 reorganization ” without exposing parent company
J & J to the bankruptcy proceedings .
On November 10 , 2021 , Judge Craig Whitley , of the U . S . Bankruptcy Court in the Western District of North Carolina , issued an order transferring claims against J & J related to its talc-based products to a federal court in New Jersey where the MDL is currently pending and where a considerable amount of work in the litigation was already completed .
The claims alleging that J & J ’ s talc products cause cancer were stayed for 60 days to allow the New Jersey transferee judge , Judge Kaplan , time to review the proceedings . A tort committee has filed a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy calling it in “ bad faith .” Plaintiffs ’ briefs to support the motion have attacked the move . A February trial is set for Judge Kaplan to hear the motion to dismiss . His decision will have implications on the pending claims .
2 ) 3M Earplugs
The 3M Combat Arms Earplugs Litigation saw 10 active trials in 2021 with more scheduled in 2022 . This active docket received a lot of attention in 2021 .
On April 3 , 2019 , the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“ JPML ”) consolidated federal suits involving claims that 3M Combat Arms Earplugs , Version 2 , or CAEv . 2 (“ Combat Arms Earplugs ”) are defectively designed into an MDL in the Northern District of Florida under Judge M . Casey Rodgers , In re : 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation , MDL No . 2885 . Now , there are more than 285,000 cases against 3M from veterans and service members .
Combat Arms Earplugs are small , dual-ended earplugs that were designed with the specific purpose of providing servicemembers a single set of earplugs with two options for hearing attenuation . One option is “ closed ” and is designed to function as a traditional earplug to block sounds out completely . The other option is “ open ” in order to dampen the sounds of explosions on the battlefield , while still allowing the wearer to be able to communicate and hear commands .
The Combat Arms Earplugs were originally developed , marketed and sold by Aearo Technologies (“ Aero ”) until it was acquired by 3M in 2008 . Due to the supposed technologicallyadvanced design and quality of the Combat Arms Earplugs , Aearo ( and subsequently 3M ) won a series of Indefinite- Quantity Contracts (“ IQCs ”) to be the exclusive supplier of selective attenuation earplugs to the U . S . military between 2003 and 2012 . In connection with the contract and as a prerequisite for bidding , Aearo and 3M represented that the Combat Arms Earplugs would meet specific performance criteria established by the U . S . Government .
The Trial Lawyer x 37