North Houston News

The owner of a Spring, TX-based talent acquisition advisory firm said “there should be no hindrance” to the acceptance of terms of a proposed settlement in long-running litigation against Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

"I think in any case where a company's product or service has caused harm to it's clients/users, the most efficient and effective way to get them their justifiable compensation should be used,” Michael Cohen, owner of Wayne Enterprises, told North Houston News. “With more than 75% of the claimants in agreement that the terms are acceptable, there should be no hinderance to the terms being accepted.”  

“Legal counsel should be removing themselves and their interests from the case and it's results - if they are unable to do so, it causes a blatant conflict of interest and they should be replaced,” said Cohen. “The service of legal counsel is what they get paid for, the end result is what the claimant deems to be appropriate/justified and acceptable."

Cohen has been owner of Wayne Enterprises since 2017, according to his LinkedIn profile. 

His comments came in response to a Houston Republic article in which the chairman of a national consumer advocacy group said Texas “is now in a spot to demonstrate its capability to handle such high-profile cases.” 

“The proposed settlement plan is crucial to achieving justice for the affected claimants,” wrote Gerard Scimeca, chairman of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE), in a recent op-ed in DC Journal. “Relocating the case to Texas offers an opportunity to expedite the resolution process, ensuring that claimants are adequately compensated without delays.”

“With its solid legal framework, Texas is now in a spot to demonstrate its capability to handle such high-profile cases like this one effectively and honorably while perhaps setting a framework for other states to follow,” wrote Scimeca. “Supporting this plan benefits all involved parties. It will highlight Texas as a state capable of delivering solid legal outcomes while eliminating faulty claims from being recognized in court.”

J&J's proposed settlement plan offers $6.4 billion in financial compensation to claimants affected by its talc products. The plan also allows claimants to have significant input in the resolution of their cases. 83% of current claimants have expressed support for the settlement plan, exceeding the 75% approval threshold required by U.S. bankruptcy code.

The case has also impacted claimants with its duration. 

"The introduction of unproven testimony and opinion has prolonged the case, impeded judicial efficiency, and eroded public trust," Scimeca wrote. "For 15 years and counting, the Johnson & Johnson talc litigation saga continues to play out in our nation’s court system, adding another exhibit to the unfortunate truism that the wheels of justice turn slowly."

The head of a southwest U.S. policy group said last week that the proposed settlement shows Texas “may have found a better way” to deal with mass tort litigation.

“A new legal framework currently under consideration in the state could revolutionize how mass tort cases are handled, promising faster resolutions for victims and protecting them from exploitation from outside legal actors while preventing frivolous claims against businesses,” Patrick Brenner, president of the Southwest Public Policy Institute (SPPI), wrote in an OA Online op-ed.  “This approach is being tested in a high-profile case involving talc-based baby powder products and their alleged connection to ovarian cancer – a legal battle that has consumed more than a decade in U.S. courts.”

“The innovative Texas solution combines corporate restructuring under state law with Chapter 11 proceedings in federal bankruptcy court, offering distinct advantages,” wrote Brenner. “The talc case has already produced remarkable results: a proposed settlement worth nearly $10 billion over 25 years, one of the largest in legal history. More importantly, when put to a vote, more than three-quarters of claimants supported the offer, recognizing it as a fair resolution that provides swift compensation while avoiding years of uncertain litigation.”