Johnson & Johnson Investor Call Summary

The following is excerpted from the question-and-answer section of the transcript.

Question: Christopher Schott - JPMorgan - Analyst : Just two here. Can you just review the timelines we should be thinking about as you, I guess, restart the litigation here and maybe specifically the next steps on that Daubert challenge. And then maybe just a bigger picture question. You did have a large percent of plaintiffs on board with the terms of the prior settlement. Is there any interest in going back to some of those groups of plaintiffs to look for some sort of settlement or deal? Or is there no longer an interest going down that path and this will purely be going through the courts from here?

Question: Shagun Singh Chadha - RBC Capital Markets - Analyst : I was just wondering if you can talk about how many cases are outstanding. And I think previously, you had indicated that in the tort system, it would be more expensive over time and it could take many years. So any latest expectations on cost and time line there? And then I have a follow-up. REFINITIV STREETEVENTS | www.refinitiv.com | Contact Us consent of Refinitiv. 'Refinitiv' and the Refinitiv logo are registered trademarks of Refinitiv and its affiliated companies. APRIL 01, 2025 / 12:00PM, JNJ.N - Johnson & Johnson Investor Call

Question: Shagun Singh Chadha - RBC Capital Markets - Analyst : All right. And just as a follow-up, it just seems like the landscape has gotten very litigious, not just for J&J, but other companies out there. There's a nutrition-related case for Abbott as well. And I think in your press release, you talked about junk science fueled by third-party litigation financing, including from foreign sovereign wealth funds. I'm just wondering if there's a broader theme to consider here. I don't know if there's anything -- any thoughts you can share on the landscape that would be appreciated at a high level.

Question: Larry Biegelsen - Wells Fargo - Analyst : Erik, you mentioned earlier that the benefit of bankruptcy was to eliminate the tail risk of future cases. So how do you address that through the tort system? And why can't you address the voting issue and go through bankruptcy again?

Question: Larry Biegelsen - Wells Fargo - Analyst : And then the second part about addressing the voting issue and going through bankruptcy again?

Question: Matthew Miksic - Barclays Investment Bank - Analyst : So maybe a follow-up on this line of questions I think everyone is trying to reconcile where you were with settlements and subsequently putting the current claims behind you and how that can progress? And then to your comment about the ongoing litigation expense starting to accruing at a level nowhere near the current reserve amount for the settlement, some sense of do you expect this to run for another three years, five years, seven years to get to reach the objective that you described, which is at some point, the percentage of wins and the sort of cases that are presenting themselves will start to just dissipate because it will become apparent that they're really at the core were not any basis for many of these claims? Appreciate it.

Question: David Risinger - Leerink Partners LLC - Analyst : Yeah. So first, could you discuss to what degree future individual trials will occur via the federal MDL and their judges versus state courts, which are at risk of occurring and what are known as judicial hellholes is characterized by the American Tort Reform Foundation. I asked the question because local judicial hellhole courts are known for delivering outsized headline awards, which are typically subsequently dramatically reduced on appeal. And then second, could you comment on taking the leadership stance that you are today on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry and industries beyond pharmaceuticals to stand up to meritless product liability claims. It seems important that J&J is actually taking this stance given the fact that drug companies stock multiples are generally discounted due to the risk of facing such merit list product liability lawsuits permanently going forward.