The Stephan Company: 128-Year-Old Barber Brand's Section 524(g) Talc Bankruptcy

The Stephan Company—a 128-year-old barber and beauty products manufacturer that claims to be the first professional men's hair care company in the United States—filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on November 26, 2025, after more than 500 pending lawsuits alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products. The chapter 11 filing in the Middle District of Florida represents one of the latest entries in a wave of talc-related bankruptcies that has included Johnson & Johnson's three failed attempts at establishing a settlement trust, Avon's 2024 filing, and dozens of other consumer products and cosmetics companies facing similar mass tort exposure. For The Stephan Company, the liability stems from products manufactured by Old 97 Company, a Tampa-based cosmetics and toiletries subsidiary acquired in 1988 and later merged into the parent company in 2016.

The case is structured as a Section 524(g) reorganization, a specialized bankruptcy framework created by Congress in 1994 to allow companies facing asbestos-related mass tort liability to establish trusts that compensate both present and future claimants while protecting the reorganized business from ongoing litigation. The Stephan Company's proposed plan includes a settlement with insurer Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to buy back historical liability policies that will fund the trust, and the restructuring has the support of a prepetition ad hoc committee of talc claimants. With estimated liabilities of $50-100 million against assets of $10-50 million, the historic company faces a balance sheet insolvency that bankruptcy is designed to address—allowing it to preserve its ongoing professional hair care distribution business while resolving legacy product liability claims through a structured claims resolution process.

Case Snapshot

America's First Professional Men's Hair Care Company

The Stephan Company's 128-year history reflects the evolution of the American barber industry from its 19th-century origins through modern professional hair care distribution—a trajectory that would include acquisitions ultimately bringing talc-related product liability that necessitated chapter 11 protection.

Founding and early growth. Karl H. Stephan, a German immigrant, founded the company in Worcester, Massachusetts in 1897. The founder initially produced barber equipment and surgical tools, with the company's bestselling product being a dandruff remover based on a 19th-century formula. By 1920, annual revenues had reached $5 million—a substantial sum for the era. Richard Stephan, Karl's son, took control in 1938 during the Great Depression and navigated the company through difficult economic conditions. In 1952, Richard relocated the headquarters to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and incorporated the business in Florida. The company went public in 1960, providing access to capital markets that would later fund acquisition-driven growth.

The Ferola era and acquisition strategy. Frank F. Ferola, a former Avon executive, acquired control of The Stephan Company in 1981 with just $200,000 raised from investors. At acquisition, the company had only one saleable product and $250,000 in debt—a turnaround opportunity that Ferola would transform through aggressive acquisitions. The acquisition history that followed shaped both the company's product portfolio and its ultimate liability exposure:

By 1997, the company achieved peak performance with $27 million in revenues and $5 million in net income. By 1998, sales had climbed to nearly $35 million, though the company essentially broke even operationally. The 2003 going-private transaction at $4.50 per share valued the company at approximately $19.3 million and removed it from public market scrutiny, though the move also meant less public disclosure of the mounting talc litigation that would eventually emerge.

Current operations. Today, The Stephan Company operates through six DBA distribution subsidiaries that collectively serve the professional barber and beauty industry nationwide:

The company's brand portfolio includes Campbell's (Liquid Shave Cream, Latherking Cleaner), Latherking, Stephan, BarberMate, Stix Fix, SuperCut, and FMS. Product categories span shaving creams, men's grooming products, haircare items, hair styling products, professional salon equipment, and cutting implements. The business operates through three segments: Professional Hair Care Products and Distribution, Retail Personal Care Products, and Manufacturing.

The Talc/Asbestos Crisis

The bankruptcy was triggered by mass tort litigation alleging that talc-containing products manufactured by a subsidiary contained cancer-causing asbestos contamination—claims that grew to more than 500 pending lawsuits with potential liability far exceeding the company's asset base.

The Old 97 Company legacy. The talc liability traces directly to the 1988 acquisition of Old 97 Company, a Tampa-based cosmetics and toiletries manufacturer. Old 97 manufactured talc-containing personal care products that claimants now allege were contaminated with asbestos. The 1995 acquisition of the Cashmere Bouquet Talc brand from Colgate-Palmolive for $12 million added additional talc product exposure to the company's portfolio. For nearly three decades, these talc products remained in commerce without generating significant product liability claims.

The critical liability event occurred in 2016, when Old 97 Company was formally merged into The Stephan Company. Under principles of successor liability, the parent company assumed responsibility for all claims arising from products manufactured by the subsidiary. This corporate housekeeping transaction—likely undertaken for administrative simplification—had the effect of exposing the parent company's assets to the full scope of Old 97's historical product liability.

How talc becomes contaminated with asbestos. Asbestos and talc are both natural minerals frequently found near each other in geological deposits. When talc is mined from deposits containing asbestos, the resulting talc product may be contaminated with asbestos fibers. These fibers, when inhaled or otherwise entering the body, can cause mesothelioma—a rare and deadly cancer for which asbestos exposure is the only known cause. The FDA issued new rules in December 2024 to standardize asbestos testing in cosmetic talc products, though this regulatory action came decades after the products at issue in The Stephan Company litigation were manufactured and sold.

Litigation volume and balance sheet impact. By the November 2025 filing date, more than 500 lawsuits were pending against the company alleging personal injury from asbestos-contaminated talc products. The company's schedules disclosed estimated assets of $10-50 million against liabilities of $50-100 million—a balance sheet insolvency driven largely by the contingent and unliquidated nature of the mass tort claims. Even if many individual claims were defensible or subject to discount, the aggregate exposure exceeded the company's ability to address through ordinary course operations or traditional litigation defense.

The litigation followed a pattern common in talc cases: plaintiffs alleged exposure to talc products over extended periods, often dating back decades, with disease manifestation occurring years or even decades after exposure ceased. This latency period means that even products no longer in commerce can generate claims as exposed individuals develop symptoms and connect their illness to the products.

Section 524(g) Trust Structure

The Stephan Company is pursuing a Section 524(g) reorganization, a specialized bankruptcy framework designed specifically for companies facing mass asbestos-related personal injury claims. This approach—if successful—will channel all present and future talc claims to a dedicated trust while protecting the reorganized company from ongoing litigation.

The 524(g) framework. Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, sometimes called the "Manville Amendment" after the landmark 1982 Johns-Manville bankruptcy case that inspired it, provides explicit legislative authority for bankruptcy courts to issue channeling injunctions directing all present and future asbestos-related claims to a trust. Congress enacted Section 524(g) in 1994 after observing that the traditional bankruptcy framework struggled to address the unique characteristics of asbestos mass torts: thousands of pending claims, unknown numbers of future claims from individuals already exposed but not yet symptomatic, and the need to preserve going-concern value while fairly compensating claimants.

The statutory requirements for a valid 524(g) trust include: the trust must assume both the liabilities and assets designated by the debtor; a legal representative must be appointed to represent future, unknown claimants; and the trust must be funded with sufficient resources to pay claims on a consistent basis. The channeling injunction—which directs all covered claims to the trust rather than the reorganized debtor—can protect not only the debtor but also certain third parties whose liability derives from the debtor's conduct.

The Stephan Company's proposed structure. The debtor's plan contemplates establishing a Section 524(g) trust with the following elements:

Insurance settlement as funding mechanism. The plan includes a settlement with Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to purchase back historical liability policies that will fund the trust. Fireman's Fund, founded in 1863 in San Francisco, was a major commercial property and casualty insurer that provided coverage to The Stephan Company and its predecessors during the relevant product manufacturing period. The insurer became part of Allianz, the German financial services conglomerate, and in 2014 began winding down its commercial property/casualty business. In 2015, ACE acquired Fireman's Fund's personal lines business for $365 million.

Insurance buyback settlements are common in asbestos bankruptcies because they provide several advantages: they eliminate ongoing coverage disputes and litigation with insurers; they crystallize the amount of insurance funding available for the trust; and they often include premium payments above policy limits in exchange for full releases. The specific terms of the Fireman's Fund settlement—including the buyback premium and aggregate funding contribution—have not been publicly disclosed but will be detailed in the disclosure statement.

Prepetition stakeholder support. The proposed restructuring has the support of a prepetition ad hoc committee of talc claimants and their counsel. This prepetition engagement suggests that significant negotiations occurred before the filing regarding trust funding levels, claims resolution procedures, and the treatment of different claim categories. Prepetition support from the claimant constituency is critical for a successful 524(g) reorganization because Section 524(g) requires that the trust be approved by at least 75% of the claimants voting on the plan.

Case Developments and Administration

The chapter 11 case is progressing through early-stage procedures including committee formation, professional retentions, and first-day relief.

Asbestos Claimants Committee. On December 23, 2025, the U.S. Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants to represent the interests of talc personal injury claimants in the case. The committee is empowered to participate in plan negotiations, evaluate trust funding adequacy, review claims resolution procedures, and ensure that claimant recoveries are maximized within the constraints of available funding. Committee professionals—typically including bankruptcy counsel and financial advisors—will be retained at estate expense and will conduct independent analysis of the debtor's finances, insurance coverage, and proposed trust structure.

Professional retentions. The debtor has sought to retain the following professionals:

Robert J. Keach of Verrill Dana LLP and Jennifer S. Novo of Stearns Weaver Miller have been admitted pro hac vice to appear in the case. The involvement of Verrill Dana, a firm with significant asbestos bankruptcy experience, signals the specialized nature of the 524(g) proceedings.

First-day relief. The court entered first-day interim orders on December 23, 2025, following a first-day hearing on December 3, 2025. The interim orders authorized continued bank account usage and cash management, insurance continuation, and ordinary course professional retention. These interim orders allow the debtor to continue operating its distribution business without disruption while the case proceeds.

Meeting of creditors. The Section 341 meeting of creditors was scheduled for December 29, 2025. At this meeting, the U.S. Trustee and creditors have the opportunity to question the debtor's representatives under oath regarding the company's financial affairs and the circumstances leading to bankruptcy.

Plan timeline. The chapter 11 plan and disclosure statement are due by March 26, 2026. Given the prepetition ad hoc committee support and the established 524(g) framework, the case may proceed on a relatively expedited timeline toward confirmation—though the appointment of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants introduces an additional negotiating party that may require additional time to conduct diligence and formulate positions.

The Broader Talc Litigation Landscape

The Stephan Company's bankruptcy is part of a broader wave of talc-related mass tort litigation that has driven numerous companies into chapter 11 and generated some of the largest product liability verdicts in recent history. Understanding this landscape provides context for the debtor's strategic decision to pursue a 524(g) reorganization.

Johnson & Johnson's failed bankruptcy attempts. Johnson & Johnson, facing over 90,000 pending lawsuits alleging that its talc products caused cancer, attempted three times to use the bankruptcy process to resolve its talc liability. In March 2025, a bankruptcy judge rejected J&J's proposed $8 billion settlement trust, and the company confirmed it would not appeal the ruling. Unlike The Stephan Company, J&J employed a controversial "Texas two-step" strategy—creating a subsidiary, assigning the talc liability to that subsidiary, and then placing only the subsidiary into bankruptcy while the parent remained solvent and outside bankruptcy protection.

The failure of J&J's approach has had significant implications for other companies facing talc liability. First, it cleared the way for talc litigation to resume against J&J in the tort system, with individual verdicts reaching staggering levels: a December 2025 California bellwether trial resulted in a $40 million verdict, and an October 2025 jury awarded $966 million to the family of a California woman who died from mesothelioma. In June 2024, J&J agreed to pay $700 million to resolve an investigation by 42 U.S. states regarding talc marketing practices.

Other talc bankruptcies. Several cosmetics and consumer products companies have pursued chapter 11 to address talc-related liability:

The Stephan Company's approach differs from J&J's controversial Texas two-step. Rather than creating a subsidiary to absorb liability and file bankruptcy separately, The Stephan Company itself filed chapter 11 with prepetition claimant support. This more traditional approach—with the actual company that holds the liability in bankruptcy—is more likely to survive judicial scrutiny and achieve the channeling injunction necessary for a successful 524(g) reorganization.

The asbestos trust system. As of December 2025, an estimated $30 billion remains available in asbestos trusts across the United States. More than 60 active asbestos trust funds currently accept and process claims. Since the first trust was created in 1988 following the Johns-Manville bankruptcy, more than $17 billion has been paid to mesothelioma patients and their families.

The economics of asbestos trust claims differ substantially from litigation verdicts. While the average mesothelioma trial verdict reached $20.7 million in 2024, most asbestos trust claims pay combined totals of approximately $300,000-$400,000. Some claimants with substantial exposure histories and severe disease may recover $750,000 or more through trust claims. Claims are typically processed within 3-6 months, compared to years of litigation for tort claims. Claimants who were exposed to products from multiple manufacturers can file claims with multiple trusts.

Industry Context: The Professional Hair Care Market

While The Stephan Company's bankruptcy is driven by legacy product liability rather than operational distress, understanding the professional hair care and barber supply industry provides context for the going-concern value the debtor seeks to preserve through chapter 11.

Barber shop industry growth. The U.S. barber shop industry has experienced sustained growth over recent years, with 6.5% annual growth over the past three years. The industry expanded to $6.4 billion in 2024 and grew to an estimated $7.0 billion through 2025, representing a CAGR of 9.8%. The worldwide barber shops market totals approximately $20.1 billion. Approximately 18,583 companies operate in the U.S. barber shops industry, with the top four companies holding 13.2% market share—indicating a fragmented industry where distributors like The Stephan Company's subsidiary network can compete effectively.

Hair care products market. The U.S. hair care products market was estimated at $20.84 billion in 2024, with expected growth at a CAGR of 6.4% from 2025 to 2030. The global salon services market was valued at $247.02 billion in 2024, with the hair care segment expected to hold a 77.01% share. These market dynamics suggest that The Stephan Company's core distribution business—separate from the talc liability—operates in a growing industry with favorable long-term fundamentals.

Male grooming trends. The global male grooming market is estimated at $81.2 billion in 2024, reflecting increased male consumer spending on personal care products. From 2024 to 2034, barbers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists are expected to add 35,300 jobs in the U.S., representing 5% overall employment growth. This demographic and cultural trend toward male grooming supports continued demand for the professional barber products that The Stephan Company distributes through its subsidiary network.

The preservation of this going-concern business is a primary objective of the chapter 11 filing. By channeling talc liability to a trust funded primarily by insurance proceeds, the reorganized Stephan Company can emerge from bankruptcy with its distribution operations intact, continuing to serve the professional barber and beauty industry without the ongoing burden of mass tort litigation.

Key Timeline

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did The Stephan Company file for bankruptcy?

The company filed chapter 11 to address more than 500 pending lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products. The talc products were manufactured by Old 97 Company, a former subsidiary acquired in 1988 and merged into the debtor in 2016, as well as the Cashmere Bouquet Talc brand acquired from Colgate-Palmolive in 1995. The company's schedules disclosed estimated liabilities of $50-100 million against assets of $10-50 million, creating a balance sheet insolvency that bankruptcy is designed to address. The filing allows the company to resolve all present and future talc claims through a structured trust while preserving its ongoing distribution business.

What is Section 524(g) and how does it work?

Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code is a specialized provision enacted by Congress in 1994 specifically for companies facing asbestos-related mass tort liability. The provision allows bankruptcy courts to issue "channeling injunctions" that direct all present and future asbestos claims to a trust, rather than permitting claimants to sue the reorganized debtor directly. The trust assumes designated liabilities and assets from the debtor and pays claims according to established procedures. The provision requires appointment of a legal representative to protect the interests of future, unknown claimants—individuals who have been exposed but have not yet developed symptoms. The framework was inspired by the Johns-Manville bankruptcy in the 1980s and has been used in dozens of asbestos-related chapter 11 cases.

How will the trust be funded?

The proposed restructuring includes a settlement with Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to buy back historical liability policies that will fund the trust, in addition to debtor contributions. Insurance buyback settlements are common in asbestos bankruptcies because they eliminate ongoing coverage disputes, crystallize available insurance funding, and often include premiums above policy limits in exchange for full releases. The specific terms of the Fireman's Fund settlement will be disclosed in the plan and disclosure statement due March 26, 2026. The trust will use these funds to pay claims according to procedures approved as part of the chapter 11 plan.

What is Old 97 Company and why does it create liability for The Stephan Company?

Old 97 Company was a Tampa-based cosmetics and toiletries manufacturer that The Stephan Company acquired in 1988. Old 97 manufactured talc-containing products that are now alleged to have been contaminated with asbestos. In 2016, Old 97 was formally merged into The Stephan Company, and under principles of successor liability, the parent company assumed responsibility for all claims arising from products manufactured by the subsidiary. This corporate restructuring transaction—likely undertaken for administrative simplification—had the effect of exposing The Stephan Company's assets to Old 97's historical product liability.

What products are alleged to have caused harm?

The lawsuits involve talc-containing cosmetics and personal care products manufactured by Old 97 Company, as well as the Cashmere Bouquet Talc brand acquired from Colgate-Palmolive in 1995 for $12 million. Talc is a natural mineral that can contain asbestos when mined from deposits where the two minerals occur in proximity. When talc products are contaminated with asbestos fibers, exposure can cause mesothelioma—a rare and deadly cancer for which asbestos is the only known cause. The specific products at issue and exposure pathways will be addressed through the claims resolution procedures established for the trust.

Is The Stephan Company still operating during bankruptcy?

Yes. The company continues operating its professional hair care products distribution business through six DBA subsidiaries: Morris Flamingo, Williamsport Bowman Barber Supply, 614 Barber Supply, Appleton Barber Supply, Norva Barber Supply, and MD Barber Supply. The first-day orders entered by the bankruptcy court authorize continued bank account usage, cash management, and insurance continuation. The bankruptcy is structured to address legacy talc liability while preserving the ongoing distribution business—a key objective of Section 524(g) reorganizations.

How does this case compare to Johnson & Johnson's talc litigation?

Johnson & Johnson's proposed $8 billion settlement trust was rejected by a bankruptcy judge in March 2025—the company's third failed attempt at using bankruptcy to resolve talc lawsuits. J&J employed a controversial "Texas two-step" strategy, creating a subsidiary to absorb talc liability and placing only that subsidiary into bankruptcy while the parent remained solvent. Unlike J&J, The Stephan Company filed a traditional Section 524(g) reorganization with the actual liability-holding company in bankruptcy and with prepetition support from talc claimants. This more traditional approach is more likely to survive judicial scrutiny and achieve confirmation.

What is an Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants?

An Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants is a statutory committee appointed by the U.S. Trustee to represent the interests of talc personal injury claimants in the bankruptcy proceeding. The committee, appointed December 23, 2025 in The Stephan Company's case, participates in plan negotiations, evaluates trust funding adequacy, reviews claims resolution procedures, and ensures that claimant recoveries are maximized. Committee professionals—including bankruptcy counsel and financial advisors—are retained at estate expense and conduct independent analysis of the debtor's finances and proposed trust structure.

How long has The Stephan Company been in business?

The company was founded in 1897 in Worcester, Massachusetts by German immigrant Karl H. Stephan, making it 128+ years old at the filing date. The company claims to be "the first professional men's hair care company in the United States" and the first distributor through the barber shop channel. The company went public in 1960, was taken private in 2003, and has operated continuously throughout its history, surviving the Great Depression, cultural shifts in the 1970s that reduced barbershop patronage, and various ownership transitions.

What is the expected timeline for the bankruptcy case?

The chapter 11 plan and disclosure statement are due by March 26, 2026. Following disclosure statement approval, the plan will be submitted to creditors for voting, with Section 524(g) requiring approval by at least 75% of voting claimants. Confirmation could occur in mid-to-late 2026, with the trust becoming operational upon plan effectiveness. Given the prepetition ad hoc committee support and the established 524(g) framework, the case may proceed on a negotiated timeline—though contested issues could extend the process.

---

For more bankruptcy case analyses and restructuring insights, visit ElevenFlo's bankruptcy blog.