Why did the J&J talc bankruptcies happen?
Shows causes on the record, then each account's causes side by side.
Not a single settled cause.
A connection is not evidence of wrongdoing.
- Causes Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, according to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Jul 2018 – Jun 2021
- Causes Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, according to LTL Management LLC Jul 2018 – Jun 2021
Each account
A to Z, none ranked above another.
Named in 2 of the 2 accounts recorded here: Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson
According to LTL Management LLC
-
Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson
led to
Jul 2018 – Jun 2021
Primary record
1
LTL's expert on J&J's ovarian cancer trial record, as the Third Circuit recounts it; the court adds that before bankruptcy J&J and its unit settled about 6,800 talc claims for just under $1 billion.
According to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
-
Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson
led to
Jul 2018 – Jun 2021
Primary record
1
Consistent with their fiduciary duties, and likely spurred by the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Ingham, members of J&J’s management explored ways to mitigate Old Consumer’s exposure to talc litigation.
Proof 1 source
-
In re LTL Management, LLC, Nos. 22-2003 and others, opinion of the Third Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 30 Jan 2023.
Primary record
According to LTL’s expert, of 15 completed ovarian cancer trials, only Ingham resulted in a monetary award for the plaintiffs that was not reversed
settling roughly 6,800 talc-related claims for just under $1 billion in total
Consistent with their fiduciary duties, and likely spurred by the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Ingham, members of J&J’s management explored ways to mitigate Old Consumer’s exposure to talc litigation.
How this answer is built
Lines on the record come first: sourced links that no one presents as their own account, each with its strongest source. Then every account recorded here gets its own column, A to Z, none ranked above another. A column quotes only that account's own words and shows the strength of its own sources. Disputed lines are listed apart, with the reason, and lines still being verified come last. Neither is counted. Withdrawn lines are never shown.
When a list is longer than the page shows, the links the public methodology ranks strongest stay (methodology 0.3), and the rest open in the explorer.
Know a source we are missing? Propose it with a pull request to content/entities/event/jo/johnson-johnson-talc-bankruptcies.md.