• Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Sign up for email updates
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

The Texas Lawbook

Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury

  • Appellate
  • Bankruptcy
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Corp. Deal Tracker/M&A
  • GCs/Corp. Legal Depts.
  • Firm Management
  • White-Collar/Regulatory
  • Pro Bono/Public Service/D&I

Group of Plaintiff Lawyers, Most from Texas, Throw Support Behind $8.9B J&J Plan

April 26, 2023 Michelle Casady

A group of plaintiff lawyers, largely from Texas, have thrown their support behind the latest proposal from Johnson & Johnson to settle in bankruptcy proceedings thousands of talc claims by establishing an $8.9 billion trust.

The ad hoc committee, comprised of 14 law firms representing more than 55,000 talc claimants, filed an initial statement with the court on April 20, informing U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan that they have entered a plan support agreement with Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Holdco.

“The ad hoc committee’s clients include the vast majority of talc claims, and about 50 percent of those talc claimants with claims filed in federal and state courts,” the statement reads. “The expectation is that the ad hoc committee’s membership will be expanded in the coming weeks to reflect the additional support for the debtor’s proposed reorganization plan.”

Mikal Watts of Watts Guerra had told Judge Kaplan at an April 18 hearing that the committee had formed in support of the plan, but the April 20 filing provides additional details, including a table that shows how many talc claimants are represented by each of the 14 law firms that have joined the ad hoc committee.

Eight of the 14 firms are Texas-based — Andres Pereira Law Firm, Fears Nachawati Law Firm, Ferrer Poirot & Wansbrough, Johnson Law Group, McDonald Worley, Pulaski Kherkher, Trammell PC and Watts Guerra — and represent a total of 32,773 claimants out of the 55,000 represented by the ad hoc committee, about 60 percent.

“Based on the ad hoc committee members’ discussions with certain law firms that support the settlement in principle, the ad hoc committee expects that such firms will execute PSAs in the coming days and weeks.” The filing states. “The ad hoc committee believes that the talc claimants represented by such firms, together with the more than 55,000 claimants currently represented by members of the ad hoc committee, hold a supermajority of talc claims against the debtor that equals or exceeds the 75 percent threshold required under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.”

But the voice of one notable Texas lawyer is absent from the filing: Mark Lanier.

The Texas Lawbook reached out to Lanier for comment but one was not provided. Watts was traveling and unavailable for an interview Wednesday.

Lanier most recently commented on the attempts to resolve the J&J claims in bankruptcy court through a statement issued April 6.

“A wise person once said, ‘Settlements feed families; verdicts feed egos.’ That sentiment was behind my comments that are circulating concerning J&J resolving talc cancer cases,” the statement reads. “My comments should not be taken as my support for the plan, which I have not yet read, nor its economics. I have not agreed to participate in it, and I hadn’t even heard of it, ironically, until April Fool’s Day. I am in favor of victims receiving prompt and fair compensation from voluntary settlements.”

On Monday, the official committee of talc claimants filed a motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding that was refiled by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary LTL Management on April 4, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit tossed the original filing on Jan. 30.

The official committee argued in the motion that LTL had done “nothing” in this second filing to resolve the Third Circuit’s concerns about its failure to “analyze its talc liability sufficiently before coming to this court for bankruptcy protection.”

“After weeks of planning this second bankruptcy, after days of depositions, and after hours of examination of LTL’s primary corporate witness, what has LTL actually established? That it has long-term contingent and unliquidated liability — which it is unable to calculate — and that it has sufficient funds to meet that liability,” the committee argued. “LTL bears the burden to establish that it is in financial distress. It has not, will not, and cannot carry that burden. This case must be dismissed.”

The case number is 23-12825-MBK.

Michelle Casady

Michelle Casady is based in Houston and covers litigation and appeals — including trials, breaking news and industry trends — for The Texas Lawbook.

View Michelle’s articles

Email Michelle

©2025 The Texas Lawbook.

Content of The Texas Lawbook is controlled and protected by specific licensing agreements with our subscribers and under federal copyright laws. Any distribution of this content without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.

If you see any inaccuracy in any article in The Texas Lawbook, please contact us. Our goal is content that is 100% true and accurate. Thank you.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Stories

  • Anti-DEI Group Accuses Southwest Airlines of Trying to Dodge Liability in Federal Lawsuit
  • With Ivett Hughes at the Helm in Houston, ‘Baker Hughes is a Corporate Leader in Pro Bono Service’ 
  • Federal-Style CFIUS Review May Be Coming to Texas
  • Grocery Deliverer Claims Private Equity Firm Cost It Millions in Longstanding Contracts with El Rancho Chain
  • Sorrels Law Launches Beaumont Office with Veteran Maritime Litigator David James

Footer

Who We Are

  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Submit a News Tip

Stay Connected

  • Sign up for email updates
  • Article Submission Guidelines
  • Premium Subscriber Editorial Calendar

Our Partners

  • The Dallas Morning News
The Texas Lawbook logo

1409 Botham Jean Blvd.
Unit 811
Dallas, TX 75215

214.232.6783

© Copyright 2025 The Texas Lawbook
The content on this website is protected under federal Copyright laws. Any use without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.