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

91–100 of 336 posts

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

#91

Post by sigilis »

scott_w wrote: post #57
littlestymaar wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then it's J&J as a whole that should go bankrupt, no a shell company designed for damage-control purposes…

That’s all well and good until you discover that you were affected by something else they did but you can’t sue them any more because they went bust servicing the talc powder claims.

If I understand your statement correctly, the idea posited is that a company which has had a large ruling against it should be able to avoid paying out the total amount assessed against it because someone might also have been harmed that could theoretically bring suit?

I don’t really think that some hypothetical future lawsuit is a valid basis to avoid the consequences arrived at for the current one. If one can simply make a virtual entity that holds all of your liabilities and then set it on fire to avoid paying them, isn’t that just a modern play on the ancient tradition of the scapegoat?

Putting all your sins on someone or something else didn’t absolve you then and it should not be a legal way to get out of paying for your mistakes now.

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

#92

Post by teraflop »

sigilis wrote: post #91
scott_w wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s all well and good until you discover that you were affected by something else they did but you can’t sue them any more because they went bust servicing the talc powder claims.

If I understand your statement correctly, the idea posited is that a company which has had a large ruling against it should be able to avoid paying out the total amount assessed against it because someone might also have been harmed that could theoretically bring suit? I don’t really think that some hypothetical future lawsuit is a valid basis to avoid the consequences arrived at for the current one. If one can simpl…

Please read the Matt Levine article that was linked a couple of comments upthread.

You (and many other commenters) seem to be under the impression that the bankruptcy procedure was done for the purpose of "avoiding paying out the total amount assessed against it", when that was not at all the case.

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

#93

Post by bigfudge »

freetanga wrote: post #60
bagacrap wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is the business getting off easy in this scenario. It's dissolving. What else can we do to it?

Send execs and board who looked the other way or were negligent to jail? Impede them from similar roles for life? It is a reality in some licensed industries (eg banking)in Europe

Not really. Very few people ever go to prison or a censured in this way.

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

#94

Post by LMYahooTFY »

SapporoChris wrote: post #15

This agency https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talc... seems to downplay the risk of cancer. Is it possible Johnson and Johnson have been maligned? I'm not an advocate, I'd be interested in seeing significant evidence that their product causes cancer. However, I'd like to see a firm distinction between talc and talc contaminated with asbestos. The link with asbestos and cancer is clear. I'm not c…

Relevant Reuters investigation

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...

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

#95

Post by Panzer04 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #53
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…

> one pretty practical approach [to how to solve this problem] is bankruptcy. This, after all, is what bankruptcy is for: It is a system to make sure that creditors are all paid fairly out of the assets of a company, rather than paying some creditors a lot because they are early and others nothing because they are too late. That's a legit argument in favor of bankruptcy of the entire company ! There's no good justifi…

Given J&J has yet to actually incur these damages, declaring bankruptcy seems a bit over the top.

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

#96

Post by sigilis »

teraflop wrote: post #92
sigilis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand your statement correctly, the idea posited is that a company which has had a large ruling against it should be able to avoid paying out the total amount assessed against it because someone might also have been harmed that could theoretically bring suit? I don’t really think that some hypothetical future lawsuit is a valid basis to avoid the consequences arrived at for the current one. If one can simpl…

Please read the Matt Levine article that was linked a couple of comments upthread. You (and many other commenters) seem to be under the impression that the bankruptcy procedure was done for the purpose of "avoiding paying out the total amount assessed against it", when that was not at all the case.

I read that article, and currently consider myself inadequately informed to analyze the legal and financial implications of the particulars of the J&J issue. It seems rather complex and I’m not a lawyer who has reviewed the relevant filings and documents.

My comment was only intended to be a response to the idea posited that some future hypothetical case should have any bearing on present reality. This belief in imaginary cases’ right to be considered in the legal system is turning up in interesting places lately, and I felt compelled to weigh in.

Apologies if I was off topic or confusing.

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

#97

Post by mkagenius »

blincoln wrote: post #56
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #8

If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad? As we've seen in a number of other recent cases research is by no means free of malfeasance. Even research performed to some statistical standard may fall far short of truly indicating a casual link. These researchers have gained materially from the output of their research (expert witnesses do not testif…

> If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad? It depends. Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc. and will argue things like "Subject A visited Australia ten years before the study and was in a city where some older st…

> Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc.

Ideally that should be part of the research paper if done diligently, refuting them even before people doubt them.

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

#98

Post by michaelmrose »

nl wrote: post #32
flagrant_taco wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> this approach allows J&J to determine their maximum liability by only spinning off a certain amount to the subsidiary. This is not what they did. To quote Levine's piece: > the box where J&J put its talc claims — could draw at least $61.5 billion from J&J to pay off those claims. The point here, the bankruptcy court concluded, was not to keep J&J from having to pay talc claims; the entire value of J&J’s consumer bu…

Wouldn't the spin off and it's executives installed specifically for this maneuver have to initiate the lawsuit to pay unfunded liabilities?

Isn't the alternative of directly attacking j&js resources made fantastically harder and more uncertain? The net effect of which is to make claimants more likely to choose the safe path of accepting the figure chosen by the guilty party rather than letting judge or jury directly decide.

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

#99

Post by ankit219 »

kevinventullo wrote: post #83
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…

So why bother with the spin-off at all? Why isn’t J&J just declaring bankruptcy?

They weren't capping the total payouts in damages. The bankruptcy filing itself said that parent company would cover the cost to ensure everyone gets the money. Bankruptcy was a process to ensure every victim gets equal amount.

The term for this process is misleading, and the mental image is very much of a company which is getting out of paying their victims. In this case, filing for bankruptcy created fairness among victims, they did not have to be first or fifth to get the right damages, every victim was treated equal.

> That is, LTL — the box where J&J put its talc claims — could draw at least $61.5 billion from J&J to pay off those claims. The point here, the bankruptcy court concluded, was not to keep J&J from having to pay talc claims; the entire value of J&J’s consumer business was still on the line for those claims. The point, rather, was to deal with those claims in an organized and efficient way, to treat all the claimants fairly.

The only reason the court quashed it was because it wanted J&J to fight the individual or class action lawsuits, and it was too early for bankruptcy.

Post reply on HN