Abbott and Reckitt’s subsidiary, Mead Johnson, scored a major legal win as a jury in St. Louis, Missouri found them not liable for a young boy’s severe intestinal disease, allegedly caused by their preterm infant formulas. The verdict marks a pivotal moment for the companies, who have faced substantial losses in prior cases concerning similar claims.
Shares of Reckitt surged by 10%, marking its best trading day in over a decade, while Abbott’s stock also saw a significant uptick. Investors, emboldened by the outcome, anticipate reduced financial risks for the companies.
During the five-week trial, attorneys for seven-year-old Kaine Whitfield, represented by his mother, Elizabeth, argued for over $6.2 billion in damages. The lawsuit claimed the companies failed to warn that their formulas, used in neonatal intensive care units, could lead to necrotizing enterocolitis—a potentially fatal condition affecting premature infants. Kaine, born at just under 28 weeks, suffered from the disease, necessitating surgery and leaving him with lifelong health challenges.
Abbott and Mead Johnson maintained their products’ safety, emphasizing that science does not establish a causal link between formula use and the disease. Both companies issued statements celebrating the verdict, reinforcing their commitment to preterm infant nutrition backed by medical consensus. Meanwhile, Reckitt’s stock recovery signals renewed investor confidence, despite looming uncertainties from nearly 1,000 similar lawsuits nationwide.
Earlier court losses included $60 million and $495 million judgments against Mead Johnson and Abbott, respectively. Despite these setbacks, regulatory and scientific panels convened by the National Institutes of Health have not confirmed formula as a cause of the disease, a nuance not permissible in this trial’s courtroom arguments.
With formula litigation casting a long shadow over the companies’ futures, both Abbott and Reckitt continue to navigate an uncertain legal landscape, as doctors and stakeholders watch closely, wary of potential impacts on medical options for vulnerable infants.
