101–110 of 336 posts
I thought Johnson & Johnson was one of the good corporations and would accept and honour its obligations.
And that science has the truth to tell us what right or wrong, not a court.
And that the law system would deliver justice.
I'm just so amazed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The unfairness isn't in what happens after they do something wrong, it's in how they structure their operations to begin with. The point of limited liability is so that grandpa can invest in an index fund even if he doesn't understand the inner workings of consumer products manufacturing without having to worry that one of the 500 companies in the index will hire a bad manager and have it wipe out not just that inves…
J&J is liable for the full liabilities of the new child company.
The child exists to make sure a pool of at least its current assets exists to split between all claimants. If they’re found to be liable for more than that, then J&J will be liable for it and, if they can’t service that liability, they will have to declare bankruptancy.
I hope this is not as bad in medicine and health related research. But just thinking that some paper can be used against you in court to claim billions of dollars in damages makes me uneasy. Peer reviewed paper != science. Peer review is a crude filter on research that can both accept bad work and reject good work. There must be a higher bar for something that can be used in the court of law. Some sort of scientific consensus must be needed at least.
It's easy to dismiss this because screw J&J. But I think we are all paying for these lawsuits through our insurances and taxes and higher drug prices.
Not saying these lawsuits don't have merits, but I think there must be a higher bar for what is presented as evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
> 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 issue is that there might be multiple actions, and compensation might be used up byt the first one (eg, if the company was sent into bankruptcy by the first class action, then subsequent cases would be useless). This is a pretty reasonable argument IMHO. > Further, if your compan…
There's a better solution: the government pays all the fines and then nationalizes the company until the profits have paid back everything owed plus reasonable interest. Then, it's sold off. The original owners get nothing.
That way, there's also an incentive for current shareholders to pressure their management to behave ethically - clearly, there's a massive lack of such in the current framework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
J&J isn't dissolving. It's still throwing off a billion dollars a month in shareholder dividends, freed from the shackles of any liability.
As the Levine article explained, and as has been reiterated several times in this comment thread: J&J is not "freed from the shackles of any liability", because it is still liable to its own subsidiary for the talc lawsuit claims, up to the full value of J&J itself (the parent company).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
> 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 issue is that there might be multiple actions, and compensation might be used up byt the first one (eg, if the company was sent into bankruptcy by the first class action, then subsequent cases would be useless). This is a pretty reasonable argument IMHO. > Further, if your compan…
The talc itself is not believed to be the carcinagen, but the talc is contaminated with asbestos. Interal documents show that J&J knew about the contamination since 1971. Asbestos was known to be carcinegic at this point and the first bans of asbestos use in construction began rolling out in 1972.
They knew and hid the health risks, just like a cigarette company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'd rather see J&J go out of business entirely.
I think I don't care about J&J as long as victims are fairly compensated. For this one, and for any future victims that are affected by this product or any other product created by J&J.
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...
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5017565-1972-through...