|Bid||129.19 x 1000|
|Ask||129.28 x 800|
|Day's range||129.07 - 129.86|
|52-week range||121.00 - 148.99|
|Beta (3Y monthly)||0.73|
|PE ratio (TTM)||20.28|
|Earnings date||20 Jan 2020 - 24 Jan 2020|
|Forward dividend & yield||3.80 (2.94%)|
|1y target est||150.19|
LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Facing off against a plaintiff’s lawyer for the first time about Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder, the company’s Chief Executive Alex Gorsky earlier this month insisted that the company’s iconic brand was safe. “We unequivocally believe that our talc and our baby powder does not contain asbestos,” Gorsky testified in an Oct. 3 deposition in a case involving a retired Indiana college professor who alleges his cancer was caused by the Baby Powder he used for decades. The deposition has not been previously reported.
Four drug/biotech stocks are scheduled to release third-quarter results on Oct 23. Let's see how these companies are placed before their earnings call.
Encouraging growth in the emerging markets despite the ongoing trade tiff is likely to contribute to revenues in the medical products space this earnings season.
Biogen (BIIB) beats estimates for both earnings and sales in the third quarter. It is set to pursue FDA approval of aducanumab. Shares skyrocket in pre-market trading.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- They kicked the can down the road.That’s the best way to describe what happened at the bellwether opioid trial that was set to begin Monday morning in Cleveland. Last week, the two sides — companies being sued for their alleged role in the opioid crisis and lawyers suing them on behalf of states, cities and counties nationwide — tried to fashion a global settlement. As it’s been outlined in the media, that settlement could have seen the defendant companies offer more than $50 billion to the plaintiffs to stop the litigation.That effort ended in failure Friday night. So over the weekend, the parties engaged in a smaller but more manageable task: settling with the two Ohio counties who were the plaintiffs in the upcoming trial. They succeeded at around 1 a.m. on Monday. For the companies — Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corp., AmerisourceBergen Corp. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. — the money being handed over to the plaintiffs is pocket change: some $260 million spread over 18 months. But for the two counties, Summit and Cuyahoga, it’s badly needed money that will help them treat and mitigate opioid addiction.Still, with more than 2,000 opioid cases yet to be tried, this settlement only offers a temporary reprieve. A significant portion of those cases are in the courtroom of Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the Northern District of Ohio. Soon enough, he will schedule another bellwether trial, and they’ll start it up all over again.Unless, that is, they manage to put a global settlement in place. There is not much doubt at this point that that’s going to happen. The two sides just couldn’t get there by Monday morning. Which is why they punted.What stands in the way of a global settlement? The states had already accepted the deal offered by the companies. But when they took it to the lawyers for the cities and counties, they got shot down. These smaller entities are deeply suspicious of letting the states take the lead. They don’t want to allow the same thing to happen with opioids that happened with tobacco in the late 1990s: The states took all the settlement money, and most of them put it in their general coffers instead of using it for tobacco control efforts.Outside the courthouse after Polster had announced the settlement, I asked the well-known plaintiffs’ lawyer Joe Rice, who is leading the charge for the cities and counties, for his reaction to the claim that his clients were blocking a global settlement. He was unapologetic. “We did not agree to those terms,” he replied. “If we are the hold-up of that settlement we did a really good thing.” He added that his clients are still talking to the states and the defendants. But, he added, “It’s gotta be fair and it’s gotta be now.”Immediacy – Rice’s “now” – is the second stumbling block. The three distributors, Cardinal, McKesson and AmerisourceBergen, initially offered to pay $18 billion over 18 years as their contribution to a global settlement. But outside the courthouse, several county executives stressed that the opioid crisis was a true national emergency and they couldn’t wait 18 years to get all the money due them.Another reporter asked Rice if the settlement with Summit and Cuyahoga counties was likely to serve as a template for future settlements. That seems pretty unlikely. If every government entity suing over opioids got the kind of money the two Ohio counties are getting, it would come to over $300 billion. Because they were first in line, Summit and Cuyahoga counties got very lucky.There are other reasons both sides need to find a way to settle this litigation. In late August, a judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million to Oklahoma for its alleged role in that state’s opioid crisis. (The amount was later reduced by $107 million because the judge made a math error.) J&J is appealing, arguing in part that the state’s novel use of “public nuisance” law to bring the case was a “misapplication” of the law. If the verdict is overturned, it will embolden the defendant companies because many of the opioid lawsuits are built on local public nuisance laws. If the verdict us upheld, however, the $50 billion currently on the table may look like peanuts to the plaintiffs.There is no question that the cities and counties that have sued desperately need money to help end the crisis. There is also no question that the only way they’re going to get that funding is from the big companies they’re suing. The only other potential source, the federal government, hasn’t put up anywhere near the kind of money these damaged and desperate communities require.The companies may not like all of this. They may not think it is fair. They may wish they could hold out and fight in court. But society is demanding that they pay up for their roles in the opioid scourge. And sooner or later, they will.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Timothy L. O'Brien at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
J&J (JNJ) voluntarily recalls one lot of its baby powders, which is the subject of numerous lawsuits claiming that its talc-based products contain asbestos that causes cancer.
U.S. stocks closed sharply lower on Friday owing to negative report of two important Dow stocks, disappointing growth of China in the third quarter and Brexit-related uncertainties.
(Bloomberg) -- The three largest U.S. drug distributors and a major generic-drug manufacturer have agreed to pay more than $250 million to settle the first federal trial over the companies’ role in fueling the U.S. opioid epidemic.Drug distributors McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Corp., plus drugmaker Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., entered into the agreement with two Ohio counties just before the start of the trial Monday in Cleveland, according to people familiar with the pact. The people asked not to be identified because the matter is still private.The agreement is likely to help buy more time for a wider industry settlement in other opioid cases. McKesson, Cardinal and AmerisourceBergen, which together control 90% of the U.S. drug-distribution market, have proposed an $18 billion settlement for more than 2,000 other lawsuits filed by states, counties and cities, according to people familiar with those negotiations. No deal has been reached on that offer.The settlement is expected to be announced in court later on Monday, said the people. Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., the last remaining defendant, hasn’t yet reached a deal so far, said the people. The trial scheduled for Monday is likely to be canceled. A separate trial, involving claims by West Virginia municipalities, is scheduled for next year.Shares of the companies fell before the markets opened in New York. McKesson dropped 2.1%, AmerisourceBergen was down 2.9%, Cardinal lost 2.4% and Teva declined 1.5%.Opioid DefendantsThe people said the settlement deal was reached at midnight after weekend-long talks in Cleveland. Other defendants in the case brought by the Ohio counties had already settled.Last week, drugmaker Johnson & Johnson agreed to settle the Cleveland case for $20.4 million. J&J has separately offered $4 billion to settle all the opioid lawsuits against it.Last month, generic-opioid manufacturer Mallinckrodt Plc settled for $30 million. A unit of Endo International Plc offered to pay $10 million and donate $1 million worth of drugs to avoid the trial, and Allergan Plc agreed to pay $5 million.More than 400,000 Americans have died of opioid overdoses over two decades as U.S. addiction rates surged, and local communities have sued to recover expenses on more drug treatment and police services.Drugmakers and distributors have been accused in thousands of lawsuits of turning a blind eye to red flags about unusually large opioid shipments and employing lax compliance standards to rake in billions in profits. The lawsuits are being overseen by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland.The companies have been in talks with states, cities and counties in hopes of reaching an overarching agreement to resolve all the litigation.The case is In Re National Prescription Opioid Litigation, 17-md-2804, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland).(Updated shares. An earlier version corrected the spelling of AmerisourceBergen in the second paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware at firstname.lastname@example.org;Riley Griffin in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at firstname.lastname@example.org, ;Drew Armstrong at email@example.com, Steve StrothFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
In this week’s Q3 earnings call, Johnson & Johnson's CFO shed some light on the company’s surprise decision to settle in Ohio.
(Bloomberg) -- Johnson & Johnson is recalling one lot of its Johnson’s Baby Powder after tiny amounts of asbestos contamination were found in samples from a single bottle purchased online.J&J is voluntarily recalling the lot, 22318RB, which consists of 33,000 bottles, and is encouraging people who bought the product to discontinue use. The company said that it is working with the Food and Drug Administration, which tested the bottle, and has started an investigation into how and when the product was contaminated.FDA spokeswoman Gloria Sanchez-Contreras said the contaminated bottle contained chrysotile fibers, a type of asbestos. The FDA recommended that consumers stop using the lot immediately and contact J&J for a refund. Another lot of Johnson’s Baby Powder the FDA tested was negative for asbestos, the agency said in a statement.J&J shares fell 6.2% to $127.70 at the close in New York, the biggest drop since December 2018. The stock has been under pressure as investors try to ascertain the company’s potential liabilities in a series of lawsuits related to talc and other products.“Thousands of tests over the past 40 years repeatedly confirm that our consumer talc products do not contain asbestos,” J&J said in a statement on Friday.J&J is looking into whether cross-contamination of the sample caused a false positive, whether the product was appropriately sealed and maintained in a controlled environment, and whether the product was a counterfeit. Sanchez-Contreras said the FDA “stands by the quality of its testing and results and is not aware of any adverse events relating to exposure to the lot of affected products.” The FDA has tested about 50 cosmetic products for asbestos since 2018 and plans to release the full results by the end of this year, the agency said.During a brief call with investors on Friday, J&J global supply chain and women’s health executives said they had received the product’s test results the previous day and acted promptly to inform the public. The investigation could take 30 days or more, they said. The executives didn’t take questions from participants on the call.Legal ImplicationsChief Financial Officer Joseph Wolk said on a Tuesday conference call with investors that the company wouldn’t set aside any legal reserves for the more than 100,000 lawsuits it faces across its portfolio of drugs, consumer products and medical devices, saying it expects to fight and win many of the claims.“The management team here will look at what a reasonable outcome could be for all stakeholders involved,” Wolk said. “When products are safe, when they’re effective, we’re going to look to make sure that those products aren’t subject to what’s become unfortunately a big business model for plaintiff’s attorneys.”J&J has already settled some of the lawsuits in which plaintiffs claim they were given cancer by the talc-based personal care products, but 15,500 suits remain, according to a July filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.Company spokesman Ernie Knewitz declined to comment on the contamination beyond the news release and said he wouldn’t speculate on what the development means for the litigation.Baby Powder-related liabilities could eventually cost the company as much as $10 billion, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. Though the product accounts for only a small fraction of J&J’s annual revenue, it’s been a core brand for the company for more than a century.Longstanding ClaimsLawyers for women who blame their cancers on asbestos-tainted talc powder contend internal J&J documents indicated officials knew since the 1970s that powder mined in places such as Vermont and Italy contained trace amounts of asbestos, but failed to alert consumers or regulators. Asbestos is often found intertwined with talc.“Had J&J acted responsibly and removed Johnson’s Baby Powder from the market in the 1970s, they would have saved the lives of thousands of women who have died needlessly of ovarian cancer,” Leigh O’Dell, an Alabama lawyer who is leading the plaintiffs’ cases that have been consolidated before a federal judge in New Jersey for pretrial information exchanges, said on Friday.Mark Lanier, who persuaded a St. Louis jury last year to hit J&J with a $4.7 billion verdict on behalf of more than 20 women who said they developed ovarian cancer through long-term use of the company’s talc-based products, said he doesn’t expect this to be the last time that its talc will be found to contain asbestos.“This confirms thousands of tests” over the years that have uncovered asbestos in J&J’s Baby Powder, he said.Given that J&J’s lawyers made public statements this month that the company’s talc-based products were free of asbestos, the recall couldn’t come at worse time, said Nora Engstrom, a Stanford University law professor. The company has vowed for years that extensive testing showed no traces of asbestos, she noted.“The wisdom of J&J’s broad defense strategy for these talc cases clearly is now in doubt,” Engstrom said.J&J has refuted and, in many cases, appealed verdicts against it, citing conflicting evidence on whether talcum powder can cause cancer. In a statement provided to Time magazine after a new study’s publication, the company maintained that Baby Powder is safe.“We sympathize with anyone suffering from cancer, and we understand patients and their families are seeking answers. The facts are clear — Johnson’s Baby Powder is safe, does not contain asbestos nor does it cause cancer, as reflected in more than 40 years of scientific evidence,” the statement reads.J&J said in February that it had received subpoenas and inquiries related to its iconic baby-powder products from the U.S. Justice Department, the SEC and the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Knewitz, the J&J spokesman, said at the time the company would cooperate with the inquiries.Bloomberg News reported in July that the Justice Department is pursuing a criminal investigation into whether J&J lied to the public about the possible cancer risks of its talc powder.(Updates with FDA testing in third paragraph)To contact the reporters on this story: Riley Griffin in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org;Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Crayton Harrison at firstname.lastname@example.org, Timothy Annett, Mark SchoifetFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Investing.com – Stocks finished the week on a down note on slumps in Boeing and Johnson & Johnson, plus new worries about Chinese economic growth.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average Index lost close to 260 points or 0.95% today. Boeing stock (BA) fell 6.73%, the biggest loss in the Dow today.
Company said 33,000 bottles will be recalled amid lawsuits alleging they knew the baby powder was contaminated. Johnson & Johnson has voluntarily recalled a single batch of its baby powder after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulators found trace amounts of asbestos in the product. The company said 33,000 bottles of talcum powder will be recalled “out of an abundance of caution”. The recall comes amid thousands of lawsuits alleging the company knew its baby powder was contaminated with asbestos, a carcinogen. Johnson & Johnson strenuously denied the claims. This is the first time the company has recalled its leading baby powder product. The same day, the Arizona attorney general announced a $116m settlement against the company, related to its transvaginal mesh implants. The company is also being sued over its role in the US opioids crisis, in a challenging period for its reputation as one of the most trusted brands in the world. Johnson & Johnson said in a statement that tests conducted by the FDA found sub-trace levels of chrysotile asbestos contamination at concentrations not exceeding 0.00002% in a single bottle purchased from an online retailer. The recall applies to lot #22318RB. The company said it could not confirm whether the sample was cross-contaminated, whether the product’s seal was intact, or whether the sample was taken from an authentic bottle of Johnson & Johnson talcum powder. The company said it has conducted “thousands of tests over the past 40 years repeatedly to confirm that our consumer talc products do not contain asbestos”. Although pediatricians have advised against using talcum powder on infants for decades, arguing there is a risk of inhalation and infection to babies, talcum powder has remained Johnson & Johnson’s best-known household staple. The product is made from pure talc, a mineral which often appears in veins alongside asbestos in the earth. “Our talc comes from ore sources confirmed to meet our stringent specifications that exceed industry standards,” the company said. “Not only do we and our suppliers routinely test to ensure our talc does not contain asbestos, our talc has also been tested and confirmed to be asbestos-free by a range of independent laboratories, universities and global health authorities.” Concerns have also been raised about the health impacts of talc itself. For decades, talc was routinely used as a dry lubricant in condoms and latex gloves, until physicians raised health concerns about talc, particularly for women. In a series of investigations by the New York Times and Reuters, internal documents from Johnson & Johnson revealed some company executives worried about the talcum products, including possible asbestos contamination, further government regulation and public backlash over health concerns.
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Johnson & Johnson, Boeing, Pfizer, Qualcomm and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial
Here we discuss three medical product stocks that are due to report soon and are likely to beat estimates on earnings, riding on a host of factors.
FDA approves Lilly's (LLY) lasmiditan oral tablets to treat acute migraine. J&J (JNJ) beats earnings and sales estimates in Q3
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Imagine you’re the chief executive officer of a large pharmaceutical corporation with an important drug that’s under attack. More than 2,500 lawsuits have been filed against your company. The plaintiffs aren’t individuals, though, they’re governments — counties, cities and states. And some of the biggest names in the plaintiffs’ bar have agreed to represent these entities, lawyers like Joe Rice, whose firm was said to have earned $1 billion for helping to bring the tobacco companies to heel in the 1990s.You know you’ve got some incriminating-sounding documents in your corporate files — what company doesn’t? — but you also know that the Food and Drug Administration approved your drug. Patients crushed it and snorted it — something that was never intended. And you’re convinced that the plaintiffs are pushing the envelope with the public nuisance laws they are relying on to bring these cases. Yes, your company will probably lose at trial, but you think you have a good chance to win on appeal.Then you look at the army arrayed against you, and it hits you: You’re never going to be able to litigate your way out of this. It’s not just that there are 2,500 lawsuits or that they are being brought by governments. It is what that represents. Government exists to serve the interests of the people, and the people are saying that your company participated in something that inflicted tremendous damage on the country. Hundreds of thousands of people have died. And your company needs to be punished.At this point, you pick up the phone, call your opponents and say, “How much do we need to pay to settle this?”I am obviously not privy to the thinking of the CEOs of the various companies facing opioid lawsuits. But given the news of the last few days, I imagine that their thought process was not too far from what I just described. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that three of the distributors being sued — McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health Inc., and AmerisourceBergen Corp. — have offered to pay $18 billion over 18 years to settle their cases. This news leaked less than a week before the start of a big opioid trial in Cleveland, in which the three companies are among the defendants.The next day, Bloomberg News reported that Johnson & Johnson was offering $4 billion to end the litigation, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. was proposing to give away $15 billion worth of generic drugs to be freed of the lawsuits. On Thursday, the New York Times reported that the five companies and the states had agreed on the outlines of a settlement that would cost the companies $50 billion.And of course, Purdue Pharma Inc. had already waved the white flag, with a bankruptcy filing last month intended to end the lawsuits by essentially turning the company’s assets over to a trust that would be controlled by the plaintiffs.It is too early to know whether any of these settlement offers will stick. Although the federal judge presiding over the Cleveland trial, Dan Aaron Polster, has asked the CEOs of the three distributors plus Teva to appear Friday to discuss the settlement talks, I’m told that the trial is still likely to begin on Monday, as scheduled.Any settlement will also need approval from the cities and counties that have filed suits. They are deeply suspicious of any deal the states might cut because they remember the outcome of the tobacco litigation. In 1998, the tobacco companies agreed to pay $246 billion over 25 years to the states, but little of that money trickled down to cities and counties. Indeed, a minuscule amount went to anti-tobacco efforts; most of the money is now used to fill state budget gaps.Still, whether it happens next week or next year, the opioid litigation will almost surely end with the companies being sued spending billions to settle it. The stock market practically demands it: Share prices of all the companies that have made settlement offers in recent days have jumped. And continuing litigation drains and distracts a company.Here’s the problem, though. Whenever plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that companies have done bad things and need to pay up, they justify the demand for money by saying it will be used to solve the problem. But will it? In this case, I have my doubts.In an opioid case in Oklahoma a few months ago, a judge ruled that Johnson & Johnson should pay $572 million (later reduced by $107 million), which he calculated would cover opioid abatement services in Oklahoma for just one year. So point one: Ending the crisis will require more money than even Big Pharma can provide.Second, just throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it. States and cities will most likely take different approaches. Some will be better than others. But there is no clear plan coming from the federal government — or anywhere else — about what steps are needed to end the crisis. Until there is, more money is likely to be wasted than not.Third, chances are good that the settlement money will be used for things that have nothing to do with opioids. Again, tobacco in instructive: Settlement money was supposed to be earmarked for tobacco control programs, but in most states the politicians couldn’t resist grabbing it for other purposes.Earlier this summer, during a court hearing, Judge Polster said that “developing solutions to combat a social crisis such as the opioid epidemic should not be the task of our judicial branch.” It was the job, he said, of the executive and legislative branches.He’s right. But that’s just not the American way. In the U.S., when there is a problem with a product, our first instinct is to sue the corporation that made it. When the litigation is settled, money is transferred from shareholders to plaintiffs (and their lawyers). It may be a satisfying resolution, but it rarely solves the problem. To reference tobacco one more time, two decades after the tobacco settlement, 480,000 Americans still die from smoking each year.I suspect the same will be true of the opioid crisis. The companies will settle, the lawyers will pocket millions and the states will get the rest. And the crisis will continue.I’ve said it before, and I’ll no doubt say it again: There’s got to be a better way.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
J&J shares fell more than 6% to close at $127.70. The move marks the first time the company has recalled its iconic baby powder for possible asbestos contamination, and the first time U.S. regulators have announced a finding of asbestos in the product. Asbestos is a known carcinogen that has been linked to deadly mesothelioma.
The world's first Ebola vaccine was recommended for approval by European drugs regulators on Friday in a move hailed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a "triumph for public health" that would save many lives. The vaccine, developed by U.S. drugmaker Merck & Co, is already being used under emergency guidelines to try to protect people against the spread of a deadly Ebola outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo. It protects against the Zaire strain of the Ebola virus - the one that most commonly causes outbreaks.
The treatment, Spravato, which is the chemical mirror image of the often-abused anesthetic ketamine, won U.S. approval in March, making it the first new type of drug for depression in more than 30 years. J&J has said that over 2,000 centres in the U.S. have been certified to administer Spravato, which has been touted as an asset with blockbuster potential.
The order by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland, Ohio, came as distributors McKesson Corp, Cardinal Health Inc, AmerisourceBergen Corp and Israel-based drugmaker Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd moved to reach a deal ahead of a trial before Polster that begins on Monday. All of those companies except J&J are set to be defendants in the trial before Polster, who oversees the bulk of the litigation.