Investors hope it could mark the beginning of the end of the saga. J& J argues that it has established a $2bn trust attached to LTL to help cover talc-related liabilities under Chapter 11. Some Congressional Democrats accused the firm of trying to manipulate bankruptcy law to deny claimants their day in court. The North Carolina judge shunted the bankruptcy case to New Jersey, where many of the talc claims are filed. In October it deployed what is known disparagingly as the “Texas two step”, a manoeuvre in which it set out to ring-fence liabilities on 30,000 or more talc-related litigation claims by creating a Texan subsidiary, LTL Management, that promptly filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in North Carolina. The company is still walking a legal tightrope when it comes to claims related to talcum powder. In October it said it had set aside $800m to settle most of its Risperdal cases. This summer it finalised an opioid settlement of up to $5bn with numerous American states, cities and counties which it hopes will lay the claims against it to rest. Lately, he points out, it has shown more willingness to settle. The firm has a history of litigating cases “to the bitter end”, he says. Such wins for J& J coincide with what Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond School of Law, calls a new legal approach. The previous week, a California court threw out a similar case against J& J and other defendants.
But on November 9th the state’s Supreme Court overturned the ruling, saying it was based on a wrong interpretation of public-nuisance law. In August 2019 an Oklahoma court ruled that J& J’s promotional campaigns downplayed the risks of opioids and meant the firm bore a wide responsibility for the deadly epidemic. The first sign of progress has been in the legal realm. But they could restore the firm’s standing with investors and society. His methods have not yet had the desired effect. He is also overhauling the firm’s structure. Alex Gorsky, its outgoing chief executive and soon-to-be executive chairman, is trying to draw a line under the legal troubles. Now J& J is taking steps-radical by its own standards-to reform on both counts. Buoyancy at J& J’s pharmaceuticals business, where sales rose by 8% last year, is overlooked because of low single-digit growth and, at times, declines in the medical devices and consumer-health divisions.
Investors say the legal maelstrom is partly to blame. Alex Spyropoulos, a blood clot specialist and professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research.Moreover, since 2012 J& J’s total returns to shareholders have lagged behind the S& P pharmaceutical benchmark by about a third.
"It's not the vaccine that's causing it - it's the body's immune response to the vaccine," said Dr. In these subjects, the body's immune system has formed antibodies that attach to platelets, the specialized blood cells that join together to form clots. researchers subsequently identified the same antibody in individuals who developed similar clots after getting a J&J vaccine. Scientists in Germany identified a specific antibody in many people who developed clots after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine - and U.S. Vaccines work by prompting our immune systems to develop antibodies against a virus, and a prevailing theory is that viral vector vaccines somehow trigger an abnormal immune response, leading to the blood clots. Still with more questions than answers, scientists are exploring different theories about why this type of shot - called a viral vector vaccine - might cause rare clotting problems. Daniel Leal-olivas/AFP via Getty Images Different theories