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

Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 336 posts

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#21

Post by akira2501 »

akgoel wrote: post #17
FireBeyond wrote: post #5

Apropos of anything else, J&J's handling of this has been despicable. Creating an entity specifically to pick up all of the related liabilities, picking up those liabilities and then (exact count may be wrong, but it's very close) literally filing for bankruptcy within the space of three days. The Texas two-step, as it's called. > In 2021, the company spun off its liabilities into a new entity called LTL Management u…

Matt Levine had a more charitable reading of the Texas Two-Step for J&J: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-l... The idea here was that a bankruptcy judge could more fairly distribute $61.5 billion dollars among claimants than having them sue J&J one at a time and getting uneven awards and costing everyone more lawyer hours.

Is a class action somehow impossible if they don't declare bankruptcy? Or they can't distribute money as easily as in a class action? The mechanics of this don't sound so absolutely necessary.

Further, if your company produces products that kill or injure people, then why should we show any interest in maintaining that companies existence with odd legal hacks like this? Shouldn't they be disbanded, their assets sold, and new businesses allowed to exist in that space?

What are we, in total, as a society, gaining by allowing this?

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#23

Post by malfist »

paul7986 wrote: post #11

Hard one to decide though the researchers did profit nicely and they are not naming their patients name. Are they real patients and if so J&J does should have the right to research their health records. Overall Where there's money to be made there usually is shenanigans. That's goes for both sides.

Exactly what profit did the scientists make?

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#24

Post by rcme »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #3

In some ways the talc controversy does seem similar to the silicone breast implant controversy in the 1990’s. An overview is at https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.206

That was published in 1996. Textured breast implants are associated with increased rates of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) [0]. Squamous cell carcinoma can also form in the scar tissue of many types of implants [1].

0: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/patient-safety/breast-implant...

1: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/health/breast-implants-ca...

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#25

Post by medler »

wak90 wrote: post #18
ozzydave wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP is spinning this as an attempt by J&J to escape paying out the liability which it wasn’t - Matt Levine (of course!) explains the details here: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-l...

It's really odd that Bloomberg somehow reports that businesses abusing liability and bankruptcy laws is good, actually.

He doesn’t say it’s good. He says that’s not what’s happening.

If you think he’s wrong, please explain why. I genuinely would love to hear a well-reasoned critique of his analysis.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#26

Post by jachee »

akira2501 wrote: post #21
akgoel wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt Levine had a more charitable reading of the Texas Two-Step for J&J: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-l... The idea here was that a bankruptcy judge could more fairly distribute $61.5 billion dollars among claimants than having them sue J&J one at a time and getting uneven awards and costing everyone more lawyer hours.

Is a class action somehow impossible if they don't declare bankruptcy? Or they can't distribute money as easily as in a class action? The mechanics of this don't sound so absolutely necessary. Further, if your company produces products that kill or injure people, then why should we show any interest in maintaining that companies existence with odd legal hacks like this? Shouldn't they be disbanded, their assets sold,…

Preserved Shareholder Value, and another middle finger from the Invisible Hand.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#27

Post by flagrant_taco »

medler wrote: post #25
wak90 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really odd that Bloomberg somehow reports that businesses abusing liability and bankruptcy laws is good, actually.

He doesn’t say it’s good. He says that’s not what’s happening. If you think he’s wrong, please explain why. I genuinely would love to hear a well-reasoned critique of his analysis.

For one thing, this approach allows J&J to determine their maximum liability by only spinning off a certain amount to the subsidiary.

It seems more fair to allow any and all claimants to sue J&J, or join together for a class action lawsuit. If the liabilities outstrip the company's total worth they can then go for bankruptcy of the entire J&J business and split assets proportionately across all liabilities.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#28

Post by darth_avocado »

nl wrote: post #20
FireBeyond wrote: post #5

Apropos of anything else, J&J's handling of this has been despicable. Creating an entity specifically to pick up all of the related liabilities, picking up those liabilities and then (exact count may be wrong, but it's very close) literally filing for bankruptcy within the space of three days. The Texas two-step, as it's called. > In 2021, the company spun off its liabilities into a new entity called LTL Management u…

Having read the Matt Levine piece linked below ( https://archive.is/KcL2P ) I think that J&J did the right thing by attempting to use bankruptcy to organize payments. It was not avoiding liability at all. The court that dismissed the claim in general agreed with J&J's process, but said it was too early. Some key quote from Levine: > Juries in the US don’t like it when companies make products that kill people, and the…

> This can lead to unfair results, not for you — who cares about you — but for your victims: If a $1 billion company has killed 100 people, the first 10 who sue might get $100 million each of damages, leaving nothing for the remaining 90.

There is a valid point there, but one could argue it sets up unfair precedent for companies to act in bad faith if they can get off easy.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#29

Post by nl »

darth_avocado wrote: post #28
nl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read the Matt Levine piece linked below ( https://archive.is/KcL2P ) I think that J&J did the right thing by attempting to use bankruptcy to organize payments. It was not avoiding liability at all. The court that dismissed the claim in general agreed with J&J's process, but said it was too early. Some key quote from Levine: > Juries in the US don’t like it when companies make products that kill people, and the…

> This can lead to unfair results, not for you — who cares about you — but for your victims: If a $1 billion company has killed 100 people, the first 10 who sue might get $100 million each of damages, leaving nothing for the remaining 90. There is a valid point there, but one could argue it sets up unfair precedent for companies to act in bad faith if they can get off easy.

Yes, agreed.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#30

Post by teraflop »

flagrant_taco wrote: post #27
medler wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn’t say it’s good. He says that’s not what’s happening. If you think he’s wrong, please explain why. I genuinely would love to hear a well-reasoned critique of his analysis.

For one thing, this approach allows J&J to determine their maximum liability by only spinning off a certain amount to the subsidiary. It seems more fair to allow any and all claimants to sue J&J, or join together for a class action lawsuit. If the liabilities outstrip the company's total worth they can then go for bankruptcy of the entire J&J business and split assets proportionately across all liabilities.

> For one thing, this approach allows J&J to determine their maximum liability by only spinning off a certain amount to the subsidiary.

Except that's not what they did. As the article explains, under the J&J agreement the "maximum liability" of the parent to the subsidiary was defined as the entire cash value of the parent.

Post reply on HN