Third Bankruptcy Attempt By J&J Subsidiary Red River Talc Dismissed By Court

Courts reject Johnson & Johnson's third bankruptcy attempt to settle talcum powder cancer claims, keeping lawsuits alive for thousands of women

Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - For years, Johnson & Johnson has tried to resolve the flood of talcum powder cancer litigation through bankruptcy maneuvers. By creating a subsidiary and attempting to transfer liabilities into it, the company hoped to use a strategy often nicknamed the "Texas Two-Step." The idea was to limit exposure by filing the smaller unit for bankruptcy, shielding the parent company from the direct impact of tens of thousands of lawsuits filed by women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and families affected by mesothelioma. In early 2025, however, a federal court dismissed J&J's third bankruptcy attempt, ruling that the strategy once again failed to meet the legal test for financial distress. For survivors and their families, the decision was seen as a victory. Many plaintiffs said they immediately sought guidance from a national attorneys for talcum powder ovarian cancer to understand how the ruling might speed up their cases. The move keeps the door wide open for ongoing talcum powder cancer lawsuits and sends a clear message to companies trying to use bankruptcy as a shield against accountability.

According to filings reported by Reuters, the U.S. Court of Appeals emphasized that bankruptcy protection is reserved for entities truly in financial trouble, not profitable corporations seeking legal advantages. Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary, known in earlier filings as Red River Talc, was found not to be in genuine distress, since the parent company retained billions in assets. Legal experts noted that courts are becoming increasingly skeptical of attempts to restructure liabilities in ways that prevent plaintiffs from accessing jury trials. Federal records show that as of September 2025, nearly 67,000 talcum powder lawsuits are still pending, most alleging ovarian cancer from long-term talc use. Public health data from the National Institutes of Health continues to reinforce concerns that genital talc use can elevate cancer risk. For plaintiffs, the rejection of bankruptcy maneuvers means that jury trials, potential settlements, and direct accountability remain possible. It also signals to other industries that creative financial strategies may not work when public health and consumer safety are at stake. The implications of this ruling go far beyond Johnson & Johnson. Lawyers note that this decision could set a precedent limiting the use of bankruptcy courts as a way for corporations to sidestep accountability. Regulators and lawmakers are paying close attention, recognizing that if bankruptcy shields were allowed in cases involving alleged consumer harm, other industries might quickly follow suit. For survivors, the court's decision has been reassuring. It demonstrates that the system is not willing to prioritize corporate convenience over public health.

This latest dismissal of J&J's bankruptcy attempt highlights the growing determination of courts to keep the legal process fair. Survivors and families have long feared that bankruptcy schemes would deny them justice, leaving them with smaller payouts and fewer chances to tell their stories. The rejection of this strategy is an important moment not only in talc litigation but in mass tort law overall. It may discourage other corporations from attempting similar maneuvers. Moving forward, plaintiffs may see trials progress more quickly, while Johnson & Johnson faces mounting pressure to negotiate a global settlement. The broader implication is clear: when consumer safety is at risk, bankruptcy should not be a shield from responsibility.

Information provided by TalcumPowderCancerLawsuit.com, a website devoted to providing news about talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits, as well as medical research and findings.