Red River Talc: J&J’s Third Talc Bankruptcy Dismissed

Red River Talc, LLC filed a voluntary prepackaged Chapter 11 petition on September 20, 2024 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The debtor was created on August 19, 2024 in a corporate restructuring that moved talc-related liabilities into the new entity, and its filing was framed in court papers as Johnson & Johnson's third attempt to resolve talc litigation through a subsidiary bankruptcy after prior LTL Management cases were dismissed. The company described the case as a targeted path to resolve ovarian and other gynecological cancer claims tied to talc products, while leaving other categories of claims outside the trust. J&J's filing announcement emphasized that the plan was designed to address ovarian cancer claims, cited a prepetition voting process that it said exceeded statutory acceptance thresholds, and highlighted the size of the proposed settlement funding. The plan drew immediate scrutiny because it sought a channeling injunction that would protect the debtor and affiliated parties, and because it was presented as a prepackaged deal rather than a case built through months of postpetition negotiations.

The proposed plan centered on a Section 524(g) trust, a statutory framework originally crafted for asbestos-related reorganizations. Court filings described a trust that would receive and pay ovarian and other gynecological cancer claims, with exclusions for mesothelioma and lung cancer claims, governmental claims, and Canadian claims. Outside reporting estimated the claim universe at roughly 90,000 cancer claims tied to more than 62,000 claimants. The debtor's declaration described aggregate trust funding of approximately $9 billion over 25 years, while the U.S. Trustee later characterized the funding agreement as capped at $7.898 billion and valued it at $6.475 billion on a net present value basis. J&J's announcement around the filing described a funding level of roughly 8 billion, framing the increase as a key element of the proposal.

The case also immediately attracted litigation over process and eligibility. A creditor coalition moved to dismiss on the day after the petition, arguing that Red River lacked genuine financial distress and that the plan sought release and channeling relief beyond what the Bankruptcy Code and Fifth Circuit precedent permit. The U.S. Trustee moved to dismiss in October 2024, describing the filing as a "textbook example of bad faith" and arguing that the debtor did not need bankruptcy relief. Those challenges, combined with disputes about the prepetition solicitation process, culminated in a multi-week trial on confirmation, disclosure statement, and dismissal issues. On March 31, 2025, the court dismissed the case for cause, finding that the plan's releases and channeling architecture failed under governing law and that the solicitation process suffered from significant defects. Law360 characterized the ruling as the rejection of a proposed 9 billion deal, and J&J later said it would return to the tort system rather than appeal.

Debtor(s)	Red River Talc, LLC
Court	U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)
Case Number	24-90505 (CML)
Petition Date	September 20, 2024
Restructuring Approach	Proposed prepackaged plan centered on a Section 524(g) trust and channeling injunction
Claim Scope (Proposed)	Ovarian and other gynecological cancer claims channeled; mesothelioma/lung cancer, governmental, and Canadian claims excluded
Proposed Trust Funding	Approximately $9 billion over 25 years (debtor); $7.898 billion cap and $6.475 billion NPV (U.S. Trustee)
Parent/Affiliate	Johnson & Johnson

Prepackaged 524(g) Trust Proposal

Red River Talc filed a prepackaged plan that sought to use Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code to channel personal injury claims into a trust. Section 524(g) is an asbestos-specific mechanism that allows a debtor to obtain a channeling injunction if it establishes a trust funded to resolve present and future claims and if a court-appointed future claimants' representative supports the approach. In this case, court filings described a trust that would process and pay ovarian and other gynecological cancer claims tied to talc products, while leaving other categories of claims outside the trust and unimpaired.

Claim treatment scope. The debtor's declaration described a line between claims to be channeled and claims to remain outside the trust. Ovarian and other gynecological cancer claims were the core trust population, while mesothelioma and lung cancer claims, governmental claims, and Canadian claims were excluded from the channeling injunction. That delineation formed a major part of the plan's premise: the trust would address a defined group of claims rather than all talc litigation.

Protected parties and channeling scope. The plan sought to channel claims not just against the debtor, but also against affiliated parties described as protected parties. The court's dismissal decision later focused on whether the plan's release and channeling structure exceeded what Fifth Circuit precedent allows. That ruling meant the core relief the plan sought could not be granted as proposed, even if funding and voting thresholds had been satisfied.

Future Claimants' Representative. The debtor moved to appoint Randi S. Ellis as the future claimants' representative, a statutory requirement for a Section 524(g) plan. Court filings described her prior involvement in predecessor talc cases and in prepetition negotiations, and set compensation at $1,250 per hour plus expenses. The motion also disclosed a $250,000 initial retainer and a petition-date retainer balance of $265,495, along with historical prepetition compensation of $638,810.60 and expected annual insurance costs around $100,000. These disclosures underscore how the plan envisioned formal representation for future claimants but also show the cost structure tied to that role.

Prepackaged path rather than postpetition bargaining. Red River positioned the case as a prepackaged plan that had already been voted on by claimants. The debtor said it had solicited votes before the filing and that acceptance exceeded the 75% threshold required for a Section 524(g) channeling injunction. J&J's announcement echoed that point, stating that the proposal had received sufficient support and that the plan terms represented a significant funding increase. The court, however, later focused on the validity of the solicitation process itself, which became a primary reason for dismissal.

Case Administration and Claims Process

The petition listed a case website maintained by the claims administrator, signaling that the debtor intended to centralize notices, ballots, and case communications through a dedicated claims platform. Court filings later stated that the bankruptcy court authorized Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC to serve as the claims, noticing, and solicitation agent. That role typically includes maintaining a claims register, distributing court notices, and managing ballots for any solicitation process. In this case, the solicitation agent's role became particularly important because the plan relied on prepetition voting and because the court later examined the integrity of that process.

Claims and notice infrastructure. The case website listed in the petition indicates the intended point of contact for creditors and claimants. In mass tort cases, that kind of portal is the practical interface for claimants who need access to pleadings, ballots, and instructions. The formal appointment of a claims and noticing agent also reflects the scale of the claimant base reported in news coverage, which placed the population at tens of thousands of claims and tens of thousands of individual claimants. For a prepackaged case, the claims administrator functions not only as a notice provider but also as the operational backbone for a solicitation record that must withstand later judicial scrutiny.

Solicitation mechanics in a prepack. Prepetition solicitation requires coordination among debtors, law firms, and the solicitation agent to distribute ballots, track responses, and tabulate results. Court filings described the solicitation results as exceeding the supermajority requirement, but the dismissal decision found irregularities in the voting process. The existence of a court-authorized solicitation agent did not eliminate those concerns, and the court's decision underscores that the legal sufficiency of a solicitation record is judged not only by who administered it, but also by timing, tabulation, and creditor access to information. Those findings became a critical part of the dismissal analysis.

Corporate Structure and Talc Litigation Background

Red River Talc was created in a corporate restructuring that followed the earlier LTL Management filings. Court filings described the company as a successor to LTL Management LLC, a vehicle previously used to separate talc liabilities from the parent enterprise. The restructuring took place on August 19, 2024, and it moved talc-related liabilities into Red River, which then filed the Chapter 11 case about a month later. The U.S. Trustee described the case as a third attempt by J&J to resolve talc liabilities through a subsidiary bankruptcy, a framing consistent with the company's prior efforts.

Texas Two-Step context. Legal commentary has focused on the use of Texas divisional merger statutes to create a liability-holding entity that files for bankruptcy while the parent company continues operating. A University of Chicago Business Law Review analysis described J&J's use of the Texas divisional merger as an abuse of the bankruptcy system, reflecting broader academic scrutiny of the strategy. The Red River case was positioned within that line of criticism because it was constructed as another divisional-merger-based entity intended to address mass tort liabilities through bankruptcy.

Talc claim landscape. The underlying litigation involves allegations that J&J talc products, including Baby Powder, caused ovarian and other gynecological cancers. External reporting placed the claim volume at roughly 90,000 cancer claims and cited more than 62,000 claimants. The plan proposed to channel only the ovarian and gynecological cancer claims, leaving other categories, including mesothelioma and lung cancer claims, outside the trust.

Company position on the merits. J&J has consistently contested the merits of talc claims. After the bankruptcy case was dismissed, the company said it would return to the tort system and stated that it had prevailed in 16 of 17 ovarian cancer cases tried over the prior 11 years. That position frames the bankruptcy attempt as a settlement and process decision rather than a concession on liability.

Trust Funding Agreements and Proposed Economics

The proposed plan relied on two funding agreements with J&J affiliate New Holdco. The debtor's declaration described these agreements as providing the financial backbone for the trust and for ongoing case administration. The key distinction in the filings was between a capped trust funding agreement and an uncapped expense funding agreement.

Indemnity Cost Funding Agreement (trust funding). Court filings described this agreement as the mechanism to fund the Talc Personal Injury Trust. The agreement imposed cumulative funding limits that scaled over time, with caps of $7.6665 billion before the 25th anniversary of the effective date and $8.148 billion on or after the 25th anniversary. The agreement also contemplated incremental increases of $250 million on the first anniversary and $600 million on the second anniversary, plus potential increases tied to accrued interest if the plan became effective. These caps framed the total trust funding as a long-term commitment spread over decades.

Expense Funding Agreement (case and administrative costs). The filings described a separate agreement to cover administrative and operating expenses, with no overall cap and a requirement to maintain at least $5 million of funding. This agreement was intended to ensure that case administration and other non-trust obligations would be funded even if the trust caps applied to claim payments.

Competing narratives on the headline number. The debtor's declaration described aggregate trust funding of roughly $9 billion over 25 years. The U.S. Trustee's motion to dismiss characterized the agreement as capped at $7.898 billion and valued it at $6.475 billion on a net present value basis. J&J's filing announcement emphasized that the proposal reflected a $1.75 billion increase to approximately 8 billion in trust funding and described the proposal as one of the largest settlements in a mass tort bankruptcy. The difference among these figures reflects both the structure of the caps and the different valuation approaches in court filings and public statements.

Implications for creditor evaluation. The funding debate mattered because Section 524(g) requires a supermajority of claimants to accept the plan, and those claimants had to assess the economics of a long-term trust. The U.S. Trustee argued that the cap and NPV framing reflected a lower economic value than the headline numbers suggested. The debtor, for its part, pointed to the nominal funding totals and the increased amount compared to earlier proposals. Those competing frames became part of the larger dispute over whether the plan should proceed at all.

Prepetition Solicitation and Voting

The case was filed as a prepackaged plan, meaning the debtor sought to obtain creditor votes before the bankruptcy filing. Court filings stated that the solicitation process resulted in more than 83% acceptance among voting claimants, and J&J's filing announcement similarly stated that the proposal exceeded the 75% voting threshold required for a Section 524(g) channeling injunction. The solicitation process was a defining feature of the case because it was meant to allow the debtor to move quickly toward confirmation.

Solicitation process and threshold. Section 524(g) requires approval by at least 75% of present claimants voting in favor of the plan. The debtor described its prepetition solicitation as satisfying that standard. J&J's announcement highlighted the voting results as evidence of support for the proposal and emphasized the scale of funding. In a prepack, the solicitation record is central to confirmation, and the debtor framed the process as compliant with statutory requirements.

Court findings on irregularities. The March 31, 2025 decision described the solicitation process as flawed. The court found that voting windows were unreasonably short, that there were concerns about vote-switch dynamics among plaintiffs' firms, and that tabulation practices did not conform to acceptable procedures. The court described the approach as "75% at any cost," a phrase that underscored its view that the process had been designed to achieve the threshold rather than ensure an informed vote. Those findings contributed to the dismissal for cause.

Impact on confirmation feasibility. Because Section 524(g) depends on validated acceptance results, the court's findings effectively removed the plan's ability to satisfy a core statutory prerequisite. The result was that even if other plan terms had been acceptable, the voting process itself provided a basis to deny confirmation.

Objections and Motions to Dismiss

The debtor faced immediate objections from both a creditor coalition and the U.S. Trustee. Those motions framed the case as an attempt to use bankruptcy to obtain releases and channeling relief without genuine financial distress. The objections also raised concerns about venue and procedural integrity.

Coalition motion to dismiss. Filed the day after the petition, the coalition argued that the debtor was not in financial distress and that the case was a bad faith filing. The motion asserted that the plan was an attempt to obtain nonconsensual third-party releases in a way that was not permitted after the Supreme Court's Purdue Pharma ruling and Fifth Circuit precedent. The coalition also argued that the funding agreement construct was illusory and coerced claimants into accepting a long-term settlement in exchange for delay.

U.S. Trustee motion to dismiss. The U.S. Trustee's October 2024 motion described the case as a "textbook example of bad faith". It argued that Red River lacked a valid restructuring purpose, that the debtor had no need for bankruptcy relief, and that the plan sought impermissible nonconsensual third-party releases and overbroad channeling relief. The motion also highlighted the funding cap analysis, asserting that the agreement represented a reduction from prior LTL-era funding commitments.

Financial distress and purpose disputes. A central theme across the dismissal motions was whether Red River faced actual financial distress or whether it was created to obtain bankruptcy relief for liabilities that could be addressed in the tort system. The U.S. Trustee emphasized that the debtor's structure and funding support meant it did not need bankruptcy to pay claims, while the coalition argued that the plan was structured to secure releases and channeling protections that would not otherwise be available. Those arguments framed the case as a threshold dispute about eligibility and good faith rather than a negotiation over plan economics.

Requested remedies. The coalition sought dismissal and sanctions, reflecting its view that the filing was an improper attempt to obtain releases and delay litigation. The U.S. Trustee similarly asked for dismissal, stressing the lack of a valid bankruptcy purpose. The competing requests made dismissal the central procedural target early in the case, which is why the confirmation fight merged into a broader trial on dismissal and eligibility rather than proceeding as a routine prepackaged confirmation.

Venue disputes. A motion to transfer venue was filed the day after the petition, reflecting concerns over the forum and the connections to the Southern District of Texas. While the case proceeded in Houston, the venue dispute was part of the broader argument that the filing was a strategic move rather than a response to financial distress.

Effect on the case path. The dismissal motions forced the case into a combined confirmation and dismissal trial, rather than a quick path to confirmation. That procedural posture meant the debtor had to litigate not only plan terms, but also whether the case belonged in bankruptcy at all.

Court Decision and Case Dismissal

The court's Memorandum Decision and Order on March 31, 2025 dismissed the case for cause and also dismissed a related adversary proceeding. The ruling addressed several core issues: the scope of nonconsensual third-party releases, the plan's reliance on Section 524(g), and the integrity of the prepetition solicitation process.

Nonconsensual third-party releases. The court concluded that the plan contained nonconsensual releases that violated Fifth Circuit precedent. Because the plan's channeling structure sought to protect nondebtors through releases and injunctions, the court found that the relief went beyond what the governing law permitted in the jurisdiction. This finding alone would have prevented confirmation.

Section 524(g) feasibility issues. The decision also discussed whether the plan's attempt to channel claims against nondebtors, including theories tied to Kenvue-related claims, created feasibility problems. The court concluded that the plan's architecture could not satisfy the requirements for a Section 524(g) channeling injunction as proposed.

Voting defects. The decision described significant irregularities in the prepetition solicitation process, including short voting windows and questionable tabulation practices. Those findings undermined the plan's ability to meet the statutory supermajority acceptance threshold and contributed to the dismissal for cause.

Dismissal as the remedy. The court determined that dismissal, rather than conversion or appointment of a trustee, was the appropriate remedy. This decision effectively ended the bankruptcy case and returned the dispute to the tort system.

Public reactions and post-dismissal posture. Law360 described the ruling as a rejection of a 9 billion deal. J&J later announced that it would return to the tort system rather than appeal, and it reiterated its position that the claims were meritless. Plaintiff firms also issued statements describing the dismissal as a victory for claimants, including commentary from Bailey Glasser, Beasley Allen, and Sokolove Law.

Key Case Timeline

Frequently Asked Questions

What was Red River Talc, LLC?

Red River Talc was a special purpose entity created on August 19, 2024 to hold Johnson & Johnson's talc-related liabilities and file for bankruptcy. Court filings described it as a successor to LTL Management LLC, and the U.S. Trustee framed it as J&J's third attempt to resolve talc claims through a subsidiary bankruptcy. The company was organized as a Texas limited liability company and filed a prepackaged Chapter 11 case in the Southern District of Texas.

What did the proposed plan try to accomplish?

The plan sought to create a Section 524(g) trust that would resolve ovarian and other gynecological cancer claims through a channeling injunction. The trust would have paid claims that otherwise could be litigated directly against the debtor and affiliated parties. The plan was structured as a prepackaged filing, with the debtor asserting that it had already obtained sufficient claimant support before the petition.

Which claims were included and which were excluded?

The proposed trust was limited to ovarian and other gynecological cancer claims. Court filings stated that mesothelioma and lung cancer claims, governmental claims, and Canadian claims would not be channeled and would remain unimpaired. External reporting placed the total claim population at roughly 90,000 cancer claims and more than 62,000 claimants, but only a subset of claims would have been included in the trust.

How much funding was proposed for the trust?

The debtor described aggregate trust funding of about $9 billion over 25 years, while the U.S. Trustee characterized the funding agreement as capped at $7.898 billion and valued it at $6.475 billion on a net present value basis. J&J's filing announcement described a proposal of roughly 8 billion, reflecting a $1.75 billion increase from earlier offers. The divergence reflects differences in caps and valuation approaches.

Why did the court dismiss the case?

The court dismissed the case on March 31, 2025, citing multiple defects. It concluded that the plan contained nonconsensual third-party releases that violated Fifth Circuit precedent, that the Section 524(g) channeling structure was not feasible as proposed, and that the prepetition solicitation process suffered from serious irregularities. Those defects led the court to dismiss the case rather than allow it to proceed to confirmation.

What did the U.S. Trustee argue?

The U.S. Trustee argued that Red River Talc had no need for bankruptcy relief and that the filing was a "textbook example of bad faith". The motion challenged the plan's release and channeling provisions and argued that the funding structure represented a reduced commitment compared with prior proposals. The U.S. Trustee's motion helped drive the case into a combined confirmation and dismissal trial.

What happened after dismissal?

J&J announced that it would return to the tort system rather than appeal. The company reiterated its position that the claims lack merit and stated that it had prevailed in 16 of 17 ovarian cancer trials over the prior 11 years. Plaintiff firms described the dismissal as a victory in public statements, including releases from Bailey Glasser and Beasley Allen.

What is the Texas Two-Step and why was it criticized?

The Texas Two-Step is a divisional merger strategy used to separate liabilities into a new entity that can file for bankruptcy while the operating business continues outside the case. Academic commentary described J&J's use of the Texas divisional merger statutes as an abuse of the bankruptcy system, reflecting broader concerns that the structure allows large companies to shield assets while limiting claimant recoveries. The Red River Talc case became part of that broader debate because it followed earlier LTL filings that were dismissed.

Who is the claims agent for Red River Talc?

Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC serves as the claims and noticing agent. The firm maintains the official claims register and distributes case notifications to creditors and parties in interest.

For more bankruptcy case updates and claims coverage, visit the ElevenFlo blog.