The Red River Talc settlement was Johnson & Johnson’s proposed roughly $8 billion bankruptcy trust to resolve tens of thousands of ovarian cancer lawsuits tied to its talc-based products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder. On March 31, 2025, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Lopez dismissed the case in a 57-page opinion, finding that the vote used to approve the deal was tainted by irregularities and that the plan illegally forced claimants to release J&J and other companies from liability without their consent. It was the third time a J&J bankruptcy vehicle for talc claims had been thrown out of court.
What the $8 Billion Deal Would Have Done
Red River Talc LLC was a subsidiary J&J created to hold its ovarian and gynecological cancer talc liabilities. It filed a prepackaged Chapter 11 case in the Southern District of Texas on September 20, 2024, case number 24-90505.1Bailey Glasser. In Re Red River Talc LLC Memorandum Decision and Order
The plan called for a Talc Personal Injury Trust under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. Every current and future ovarian and gynecological cancer claim tied to J&J’s talc products would be channeled into the trust, which would receive a stream of payments over 25 years totaling roughly $8 billion, or about $6.45 billion in present value.1Bailey Glasser. In Re Red River Talc LLC Memorandum Decision and Order During solicitation, J&J added $1.75 billion to the pot: $1.1 billion more for claimants and $650 million to cover multidistrict litigation attorneys’ fees.2Johnson & Johnson. Johnson and Johnson Announces Red River Talc LLC Voluntary Prepackaged Chapter 11 Case
Mesothelioma claims were not part of the Red River deal. Those were routed to a separate J&J subsidiary, Pecos River Talc LLC.2Johnson & Johnson. Johnson and Johnson Announces Red River Talc LLC Voluntary Prepackaged Chapter 11 Case
In exchange for funding the trust, J&J itself, the consumer health spin-off Kenvue, and hundreds of retailers would be released from all talc-related claims through a channeling injunction. Claimants who accepted payment would sign an Acceptance and Release, and those who voted no would still be bound by the releases with no opt-out.1Bailey Glasser. In Re Red River Talc LLC Memorandum Decision and Order
Why the Vote Could Not Be Certified
Red River told the court that about 83% of voting claimants supported the plan, well above the 75% threshold its own disclosure statement required. Judge Lopez concluded the process behind that number could not stand.
Law firms voted tens of thousands of claims without hearing directly from their clients, relying on general engagement-letter language covering “any and all actions” rather than specific powers of attorney. The court found that language insufficient under bankruptcy rules.3American Bankruptcy Institute. Bankruptcy Court Dismisses Chapter 11 Plan Over Voting Irregularities Thousands of claimants were given only days to review and vote; one group of women with cancer had two business days and a weekend.4Creditor Coalition. Red River Talc Finally Says Good-Bye to Bankruptcy One firm representing 11,000 clients who had initially voted to reject the plan flipped all of those votes to yes for an amended version, giving clients less than two days to opt out.
There was a further wrinkle around the largest bloc of no votes. Andy Birchfield of Beasley Allen submitted a Master Ballot with more than 11,000 rejections. The court later found he had received only about 3,000 affirmative responses from clients and had treated non-responses as no votes, and 21 plaintiffs represented by other counsel said Beasley Allen had cast ballots for them without permission.5ALM. Talc NJ Pro Hac Motion
The initial tally had reached only about 70%, short of the 75% floor Red River had set before filing. The company filed anyway. Judge Lopez concluded that “the prepetition voting and solicitation irregularities, including the unreasonably short voting time for thousands of creditors, was all done to get to 75 percent at any cost.”6Marin Murphy Law. Bankruptcy Court Rejects Red River Talc Plan Dismisses J&J Talcum Powder Case
Why the Releases of J&J Were Illegal
Even setting the vote aside, the plan could not be confirmed. It forced claimants to release parties other than Red River itself, covering J&J, Kenvue, and hundreds of retailers, and shielded them from claims the court described as “wholly separate from Red River’s acts.”1Bailey Glasser. In Re Red River Talc LLC Memorandum Decision and Order
The controlling authority was the Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., which held 5–4 that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a reorganization plan to discharge claims against a non-debtor without the affected claimants’ consent. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the Code’s “catchall” provision could not be stretched to give bankruptcy courts the “radically different” power to extinguish third-party debts.7Supreme Court of the United States. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
Judge Lopez rejected Red River’s argument that the plan qualified for a “full pay” exception. The company’s claim valuations relied on past settlement figures rather than actual claim values, and a single trial had already produced a $2.52 billion verdict against J&J. The court also read Fifth Circuit law as potentially barring nonconsensual third-party releases even in true full-pay cases. Section 524(g), which permits certain releases in asbestos cases, did not save the plan either: the court held it reaches only “derivative” claims flowing from the debtor’s own conduct, and an indemnification obligation alone does not convert a direct claim against a retailer or Kenvue into a derivative one.4Creditor Coalition. Red River Talc Finally Says Good-Bye to Bankruptcy
Rather than let the plan be revised, Judge Lopez dismissed the case outright, writing that “the entire construct of the Plan requires re-thinking” and that the stay on litigation had gone on long enough.4Creditor Coalition. Red River Talc Finally Says Good-Bye to Bankruptcy He also found the filing lacked a legitimate bankruptcy purpose, since Red River existed only to broker a settlement, not to preserve a business or jobs.6Marin Murphy Law. Bankruptcy Court Rejects Red River Talc Plan Dismisses J&J Talcum Powder Case
The Third Failed Bankruptcy Attempt
Red River was not J&J’s first try. In October 2021, the company used a Texas divisional merger, sometimes called the “Texas two-step,” to split its consumer subsidiary into two entities. All talc liabilities went to a new company, LTL Management LLC, which filed for Chapter 11 two days later, backed by a J&J funding agreement of up to $61.5 billion.8Dentons. Third Circuit Dismisses LTL Mass Tort Bankruptcy The Third Circuit tossed the case in January 2023, ruling that LTL was not in “financial distress” given the size of J&J’s backstop.9University of Chicago Business Law Review. Court Rejects Johnson and Johnsons Use of Texas Two-Step A second LTL filing with a revised funding structure was dismissed later that year.10Temple University 10-Q. Johnson and Johnsons Talcum Two-Step J&J then reorganized once more, converting LTL into a Texas LLC and spinning off Red River to hold the ovarian and gynecological cancer claims.
What Happens to Talc Claims Now
J&J said it would not appeal the dismissal and would not refile bankruptcy for Red River.4Creditor Coalition. Red River Talc Finally Says Good-Bye to Bankruptcy Individual lawsuits resumed, and juries have since returned several large verdicts. A California jury awarded $966 million in a mesothelioma case in October 2025. In December 2025, a Baltimore jury returned a $1.56 billion verdict in Craft v. Johnson & Johnson, the largest talc award to a single plaintiff.11Fierce Pharma. Baltimore Jury Orders J&J to Pay $1.5B Other December 2025 verdicts included $65.5 million in Minnesota and $40 million in California.12Mass Lawyers Weekly. J&J Talc Cancer Verdicts Asbestos Lawsuits
As of mid-2026, roughly 67,600 talcum powder lawsuits remain pending in the federal multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 2738, in New Jersey.13Motley Rice. Talcum Powder Lawsuit In January 2026, retired Judge Freda Wolfson issued a 658-page ruling finding the plaintiffs’ experts reliable and concluding that the epidemiological evidence shows a statistically significant link between genital talc use and ovarian cancer, clearing the way for MDL trials expected in the second half of 2026.14Rheingold Law. Johnson and Johnson Talc Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits to Proceed in Federal MDL Litigation J&J has not announced a new global settlement.15Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Settlements