If they agree then it’s not expensive enough.
Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
61–70 of 83 posts
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#62Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#63Another day, another slap on the wrist.
[deleted]
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a statement, Dupont said it “has never manufactured PFOA or PFOS.” CNN has reached out to the other companies for comment on the allegations, which they denied in a press release Friday. How can they stop something they never did
DuPont is lying. They 100% did produce these materials. We have a factory on my place from which they dump this in the river.
Maybi ask what type of factory, are there no regulations?
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#65Seems kinda low given the scope and bets that amount a) gets substantially reduced later on and b) will be claimed as business expense so will have a even lesser net effect. Its just minor inconvenience for them.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back when I was 19 and an anarchist, I was always critical of LLC laws. I probably still am. I believe the judicial system does do the fine as you mentioned, but the prosecutors have to be realistic and settle out of court at the risk a skeptical judge/jury. Without LLC laws, you could go after personal ownership too. Privately owned company means there is a few billionaires to have their wealth confiscated. Publicly…
I'm not sure that the LLC laws are exactly the problem. I think it's the fact that you can get a company incorporated to do pretty much a vague _anything_ is the problem. There should be an ounce of thought by the State as to if what the person wants a company for is actually useful for society before granting them immunity. The second major issue is that the State is never willing to dissolve a company once it reach…
First, a corporation can’t do anything that an individual can’t do.
Second, incorporation does not protect the business, it protects investors. Without it, investors would be general partners and would be personally liable for anything the business does, including all debts and torts, even if they had no active role in running the business.
Third, where owners of a corporation or LLC do participate in running a business, they often can be held personally liable for the debts and torts of the business. This is called “piercing the corporate veil” and happens all the time in lawsuits against small businesses.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#67The cost for anything like this should always be the cost of cleaning up the entire mess it created and compensating the humans harmed by it and covering their lifetime medical bills. $1billion sounds a tad low for doing any of that given the world wide impact. Its a bad deal.
They are not absolved of their remediation responsibilities, which are separate from these claims.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure that the LLC laws are exactly the problem. I think it's the fact that you can get a company incorporated to do pretty much a vague _anything_ is the problem. There should be an ounce of thought by the State as to if what the person wants a company for is actually useful for society before granting them immunity. The second major issue is that the State is never willing to dissolve a company once it reach…
First, a corporation can’t do anything that an individual can’t do. Second, incorporation does not protect the business, it protects investors. Without it, investors would be general partners and would be personally liable for anything the business does, including all debts and torts, even if they had no active role in running the business. Third, where owners of a corporation or LLC do participate in running a busin…
> First, a corporation can’t do anything that an individual can’t do.
The problem is not that a corporation can do something that an individual can't. It's that you can't punish a corporation the same way you can an individual. Corporations cannot sit in a jail cell.
> Second, incorporation does not protect the business
Your Third point kinda disproves this. You have to "pierce the corporate veil" in order to hold individuals of the LLC liable and this is generally w.r.t. an LLC commingling its funds with the owners funds. Not to do with an Owner doing an undesirable/illegal act (say fraud).
> Third, ... happens all the time in lawsuits against small businesses.
I'm not really sure any of these points counter-act anything I wrote. I explicitly called out Wells Fargo and you responded that small business routinely get attacked. Wells Fargo is not a small business.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#69Isn't $1B a trivial amount for environmental damage?
Yes, it's meaningless.
Once again, these huge corporations are destroying the world for profit and getting away with it.
Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS. I think that I want the operating unit to be halted and dismantled. Not the shareholders, management, or other units. So, I don't think Chapter 11 is the right solution.
I think Chapter 11 was just meant as an example of a "closed" company continuing to operate. No reason we can't dismantle Dupont in a similar fashion.
Will it solve the problem though? Assets & IP would be auctioned off. Shell companies would be formed to handle liability. The problem lies with the people who made the decisions that led to the toxic materials being discharged into the environment & the people harmed.
A Chapter 11 would allow the same staff who caused the problems to join the new companies. Unless the people who caused the problems are personally & criminally held liable, nothing would change.