Becton Dickinson Liability — BD's Acquisition of Bard

The 2017 Becton Dickinson Acquisition of C.R. Bard

In April 2017, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) announced the acquisition of C.R. Bard, Inc. for approximately $24 billion — one of the largest medical device transactions in history. The acquisition was completed in December 2017. BD, already one of the world's largest medical technology companies, absorbed Bard's extensive product portfolio including vascular access devices, urology products, oncology products, and surgical specialties. C.R. Bard became a wholly owned subsidiary of BD and was subsequently integrated into BD's Medical segment. The acquisition included assumption of all Bard corporate liabilities, contractual obligations, and pending and future product liability claims.

At the time of the acquisition, C.R. Bard had received thousands of Medical Device Reports (MDRs) submitted to the FDA under 21 CFR Part 803 documenting PowerPort catheter fractures and associated adverse events — including fragment migration, cardiac injury, sepsis, and death. These MDRs are public records available through the FDA's MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database. Due diligence in a $24 billion acquisition would include review of regulatory compliance history and pending litigation — meaning BD acquired Bard with knowledge of, or imputed knowledge of, the PowerPort catheter fracture problem.

BD's Post-Acquisition Conduct — Continued Sale Without Redesign

After the acquisition, BD continued to manufacture and sell PowerPort devices with polyurethane catheter tubing without implementing a redesign to address the ESC fracture mechanism. Plaintiffs argue that BD had an independent duty, upon assuming control of the PowerPort product line, to conduct a thorough safety review, implement design changes to address the known polyurethane degradation hazard, update physician and patient warnings to specifically identify the catheter fracture risk and its consequences, and consider a voluntary recall or market withdrawal for the highest-risk device configurations.

BD's failure to take these steps after the acquisition — when it had full knowledge of the pre-existing adverse event record — forms the basis for independent post-acquisition negligence and failure-to-warn claims against BD in addition to successor liability for Bard's pre-acquisition conduct. This dual liability theory — Bard's original design and warning failures plus BD's post-acquisition failure to correct them — is a central element of the PowerPort MDL claims.

FDA Medical Device Reports and Regulatory History

Under federal law (21 CFR Part 803), medical device manufacturers must report to the FDA any adverse events that may be associated with their device and that resulted in serious injury or death. These reports — available through the FDA MAUDE database — show hundreds of PowerPort catheter fracture events reported over more than a decade. Plaintiffs' attorneys in the MDL have used these reports to demonstrate that Bard and BD were on notice of the catheter fracture hazard, that the rate of reported events was sufficient to trigger enhanced regulatory warnings or corrective action, and that despite this notice neither company took adequate steps to protect patients. The FDA's oversight record — including any warning letters, 483 observations, or device recalls related to the PowerPort — is also relevant evidence that has been produced in MDL discovery.