Introduction
Johnson & Johnson (J&J), a healthcare giant with an enterprise value of $375 billion, has recently announced a tentative settlement to address claims that its talcum powder caused cancer. The settlement involves a $14 billion payout over 25 years to tens of thousands of claimants. However, J&J has also criticized the role of litigation finance in the process, highlighting the growing influence of financial institutions in mass tort cases.
The Settlement and Its Implications
The proposed settlement aims to resolve a significant legal challenge for J&J, providing compensation to victims and bringing closure to the company. The agreement is expected to offer a win-win outcome: victims will begin receiving payments soon, while J&J can move past the litigation cloud. However, J&J used this opportunity to criticize plaintiffs’ lawyers, accusing them of having “conflicted financial incentives” that complicated negotiations.
In a striking statement, J&J blamed frivolous litigation partly on “the unregulated and surreptitious financing of product litigation by financial institutions, including private equity and sovereign wealth funds.” Although J&J did not name specific firms, it later sought details on the plaintiffs’ backers, including Fortress Investment Group, a $48 billion alternative asset manager owned by Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala Investment Company.
Fortress Investment Group and Litigation Finance
Within Fortress’s private credit division is Fortress Legal Assets, one of the world’s most sophisticated litigation funding entities. A plaintiff’s lawyer in the talc case admitted last year that Fortress funds were partly financing the multimillion-dollar pursuit of claims. Despite agreeing to a settlement, J&J maintains that its talc products did not cause cancer and contends that Fortress’s funding distorted the bargaining process. According to J&J, the high cost of Fortress’s capital (approximately 15 percent) acted as a “tax,” preventing an earlier settlement and negatively impacting both the company and the victims.
The Controversial Role of Litigation Finance
Litigation finance, although not a new concept, remains contentious. Historically, plaintiff law firms have been labeled “ambulance chasers” and faced stigma in the US. However, Wall Street firms increasingly back these firms in mass tort cases, leading to confrontations with major corporations like J&J.
Litigation funders argue that their role is to level the playing field. While corporate defendants often have insurance to mitigate their liabilities, litigation finance helps victims pursue justice by providing necessary upfront capital. Samir Parikh, a law professor at Wake Forest University, notes that the quality of victim claims often has little bearing on case outcomes. Instead, the key service provided by attorneys is “building inventory” or gathering large numbers of claimants to pressure companies into settling.
The Impact of Private Capital in Legal Battles
Fortress’s involvement in litigation finance is substantial, with $6.8 billion cumulatively funded according to its website. Industry insiders suggest that nearly every major private capital firm participates in lawsuit funding, though often discreetly and through affiliates. For instance, Centerbridge and Apollo have funded lawsuits against PG&E while also being financial creditors and shareholders of the utility, which paid billions in wildfire damages.
Corporate general counsels and the US Chamber of Commerce now view litigation finance as a significant threat, given the financial power of private capital firms. These firms, seeking to shed their “vulture” image, find investing in legal battles to be lucrative. The J&J case underscores the complexities and high stakes involved in managing these legal-financial dynamics.
The Broader Implications for Litigation Finance
The Johnson & Johnson settlement sheds light on the evolving landscape of litigation finance. As private capital firms become more involved in funding lawsuits, their influence over legal proceedings grows. This trend has significant implications for how mass tort cases are litigated and resolved. Critics argue that litigation finance can lead to excessive and prolonged legal battles, driven by the financial interests of funders rather than the merits of the cases.
However, proponents contend that litigation finance democratizes access to justice, allowing individuals and small firms to take on powerful corporate defendants. By providing the necessary financial resources, litigation funders enable plaintiffs to pursue their claims without the burden of upfront legal costs.
Conclusion
The Johnson & Johnson talcum powder settlement highlights the changing dynamics in litigation finance. As Wall Street firms like Fortress Investment Group back legal battles against major corporations, the stakes in mass tort cases continue to rise. While this trend poses challenges for companies like J&J, it also underscores the importance of litigation finance in ensuring access to justice for plaintiffs. As the legal landscape evolves, the role of financial institutions in litigation will remain a critical and contentious issue.
Read: The Pharmaceutical companies with the most patents in 2024
