Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer (reuters.com)

Article summary

Johnson and Johnson is suing researchers who linked talc to cancer, with the company alleging that the researchers concealed the fact that some patients had been exposed to asbestos from other sources. The researchers had published studies on the link between talc and cancer, and had provided expert testimony in lawsuits against J&J. The company's handling of the issue has been criticized, with some accusing J&J of trying to suppress bad news and avoid liability. The case has sparked a wider discussion about corporate accountability and the use of legal maneuvers to limit liability.

Main themes

• corporate accountability
• bankruptcy and liability
• talc and cancer
• research and expertise
• shareholder protection
• deterrence and punishment

What commenters say

• The use of the Texas Two-Step bankruptcy maneuver by J&J is seen as a legitimate way to manage liability, but others argue it is a tactic to avoid paying out claims.
• Some commenters believe that J&J's actions are driven by a desire to minimize payouts to claimants, while others think the company is genuinely trying to manage its liabilities.
• The effectiveness of the Texas Two-Step maneuver in limiting liability is debated, with some arguing it allows companies to determine their own maximum liability and avoid full accountability.
• There is disagreement over whether the punishment for corporate wrongdoing should be a fine or something more severe, such as bankruptcy, in order to serve as an effective deterrent.
• Some argue that the focus on protecting shareholders and pension funds can lead to a lack of accountability for corporate wrongdoing, while others believe that these stakeholders should be protected.
• The transparency and fairness of the bankruptcy process are questioned, with some arguing that it can be used to shield companies from full liability and others believing it is a necessary tool for managing debt.
• The link between talc and cancer is seen as a key issue, with some arguing that the science is clear and others believing it is still uncertain.
• The role of expert testimony and research in shaping public opinion and informing legal decisions is highlighted as an important aspect of the case.