A New Jersey federal judge on Thursday dismissed a proposed class action brought by cancer patients accusing Johnson & Johnson and its talc-related affiliates of fraudulently using Chapter 11 proceedings to delay and limit liability, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to show a legally cognizable injury needed to pursue the case.
U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp granted motions to dismiss filed by Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kenvue Inc., and Red River Talc LLC, concluding that the plaintiffs’ claims rested on speculative harm rather than an actual, concrete injury required under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
The plaintiffs alleged that J&J’s repeated corporate restructurings and bankruptcy filings stalled talc litigation nationwide, depriving claimants of the “time value of money” tied to judgments that could have been paid sooner. Judge Shipp rejected that argument, finding that delays in litigation—whether tied to bankruptcy stays or other procedural developments—do not, on their own, establish standing to sue.
The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had not alleged delayed collection of an existing debt, but rather a potential future judgment that depends on success in underlying talc cases. Any claimed financial harm, the judge wrote, would remain hypothetical unless and until the plaintiffs prevailed at trial. Such a chain of events was too uncertain to support federal jurisdiction.
Judge Shipp also noted that the complaint failed to quantify alleged losses, reinforcing the conclusion that the asserted injury was speculative. He dismissed the claims without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the plaintiffs could attempt to amend their complaint.
The lawsuit targeted a series of corporate transactions tied to J&J’s efforts to resolve tens of thousands of claims alleging its cosmetic talc products caused cancer due to asbestos contamination. Those efforts included the 2021 creation of LTL Management through a divisional merger, the transfer of consumer health assets into Kenvue, and changes to funding agreements designed to support bankruptcy-based settlements.
J&J has repeatedly attempted to channel talc liabilities into bankruptcy proceedings, efforts that courts have rejected multiple times after finding the entities lacked financial distress or that procedural flaws undermined the cases. Most recently, Red River Talc filed for Chapter 11 in Texas in 2024 with a proposed multibillion-dollar settlement supported by a large majority of claimants, only for the case to be dismissed over voting and release concerns.
In the dismissed suit, the plaintiffs argued that these restructurings were designed to shield cash flow, limit exposure, and delay jury trials. Judge Shipp found that, regardless of those allegations, the plaintiffs had not shown a present injury traceable to the challenged conduct.
Johnson & Johnson continues to maintain that its talc products are safe, do not contain asbestos, and do not cause cancer. Representatives for the parties did not immediately comment on the ruling.
The case is Rebecca Love et al. v. Red River Talc LLC et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
