John A. Baden IV

Most recently, John advocated for consumers throughout Takata Corp.’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy process and helped negotiate the structure of the resulting bankruptcy agreement for personal injury claimants. John also handles the negotiation and complex case resolution of asbestos bankruptcies, including development of structured settlements with viable asbestos manufacturers and those emerging from bankruptcy. His work with the bankruptcy courts and settlement trusts aims to hold asbestos companies accountable and provide due compensation to asbestos victims. John has lectured on asbestos bankruptcy issues at a number of legal seminars.

John is involved in the settlement negotiations of medical drug and device MDLs, including the transvaginal mesh litigation In re American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2325. He continues to be involved in negotiations related to additional TVM manufacturers. John also played a role in settlement negotiations for In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1871. 

John has additionally been actively involved with the firm's representation of people and businesses in Gulf Coast communities suffering as a result of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He held a central role in the negotiation process involving the two settlements reached with BP, one of which is the largest civil class action settlement in U.S. history.

John began his legal career as a litigation trial paralegal for Ron Motley in 1997, working with the State Attorneys General on the landmark tobacco litigation primarily in Florida, Mississippi and Texas. He also supported occupational litigation in several states, including the exigent trial dockets of Georgia and West Virginia. John served as a judicial intern for Judge Sol Blatt, Jr., of the U.S. District Court of South Carolina and Judge Jasper M. Cureton of the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

* Please remember that every case is different. Any result we achieve for one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.