Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims

#71

Post by JohnFen »

bdowling wrote: post #66
lesuorac wrote: post #50

Earlier 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…

> 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.

I think it would be a better world if investors were held responsible for the wrongdoings of the businesses they finance.

Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims

#72

Post by JohnFen »

politician wrote: post #32
wmeredith wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Justice served would be jail time for execs or a corporate death penalty. Levying a fine means it's just a cost of doing business. And a billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket for these massive multinational corporations that have been in business for decades.

> a corporate death penalty So, no more Kevlar for police protection? The problem with the idea of a corporate death penalty is that it would shutter the corporation, shock the supply chain for critical materials, terminate the employment of thousands of people, and devastate their communities (e.g. because employees have families and those families consume food and stuff from the local economy which, in turn, suppor…

> It's obvious why we haven't adopted it as a viable punishment.

But we did. It used to be a tool that was implemented when a corporation behaved egregiously badly. At some point, though, we stopped (I think it was in the 40s, but I'm not sure).

We really, really need to bring it back. There is no other way to hold them in check.

Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims

#73

Post by JohnFen »

politician wrote: post #46
HWR_14 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow corporations to continue operating. They just hose the investors.

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.

> The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS.

True. They're just bankrolling it. I think it's totally fair to hold them responsible as well. Perhaps it would make investors pay more attention to what they're really supporting with their investment money.

Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims

#74

Post by JohnFen »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #12
CommanderData wrote: post #5

Pocket change. This is not accountability for infecting the worlds population with these nasty chemicals.

PFAS technology was top secret WW2 research output. Then the military discovered that they had amazing properties to fight extremely dangerous fires in missile warehouses and were eventually required to use them to maximize safety decades ago. Prozac, Lipitor, Flonase and about 30% of upcoming new pharmaceutical drugs are PFAS, so they aren't going away completely, because society has determined that they are valuabl…

> because society has determined that they are valuable even if they can reach toxic levels if not disposed of properly

Society never decided this one way or another. Rich and powerful corporations did.

Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims

#76

Post by fuzzfactor »

notRobot wrote: post #2

$1B combined, not individually > The three companies said they have agreed to contribute a total of $1.185 billion to a settlement fund. Chemours will contribute 50 percent (about $592 million), and DuPont and Corteva will together contribute the remaining 50 percent, at about $400 million and $193 million, respectively.

I would say the toxins will last a lot longer than the $1 Billion will.

Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims

#77

Post by bdowling »

lesuorac wrote: post #68
bdowling wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

Any person who commits a crime on behalf of their employer can and should be held criminally liable. That the employee was instructed to do so by his manager will not prevent his conviction, it will only be evidence that the manager should also be held criminally liable.

Veil-piercing is relevant when the business is insolvent or can’t pay the judgment. So the corporate entity isn’t protecting the business in that case.

Re Wells Fargo, would you hold ordinary shareholders who do not participate in the management of the business liable for debts of or crimes committed by Wells Fargo?

Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims

#78

Post by bdowling »

JohnFen wrote: post #71
bdowling wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I think it would be a better world if investors were held responsible for the wrongdoings of the businesses they finance.

If that were the case, you wouldn’t have nearly as many investors.

Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims

#79

Post by mensetmanusman »

JohnFen wrote: post #74
mensetmanusman wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PFAS technology was top secret WW2 research output. Then the military discovered that they had amazing properties to fight extremely dangerous fires in missile warehouses and were eventually required to use them to maximize safety decades ago. Prozac, Lipitor, Flonase and about 30% of upcoming new pharmaceutical drugs are PFAS, so they aren't going away completely, because society has determined that they are valuabl…

> because society has determined that they are valuable even if they can reach toxic levels if not disposed of properly Society never decided this one way or another. Rich and powerful corporations did.

One could say this about all chemistry.

Re: Three companies agree to pay $1B to settle 'forever chemical' claims

#80

Post by alistairSH »

briantakita wrote: post #70
alistairSH wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 &…

The idea is the owners/shareholders get punished. If we punish them, they'll stop hiring criminally negligent C-suites.

I'd prefer we do both. Hold the actual bad actors accountable AND also kill the company and hurt the shareholders. Anybody involved needs to have incentive to stop the bad behavior.

I'm tired of people using corporate shells as a get-out-of-jail card when they do things that are illegal and/or knowingly bad for society/environment.

Post reply on HN