Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by sesuximo » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 3:55 PM UTC

:/

- J&J made useful products that may have been problematic according to cutting edge research. Now they are broke and fighting tons of litigation. And they are acting shady in court (thx to their lawyers/management, not their researchers no doubt).

- Researchers did cutting edge work on a relevant topic. Now they are getting sued.

- a load of people are suing J&J after choosing to buy their products. I’m sure some of the plaintiffs have real tough situations and some are motivated by greed/pushy lawyers. These people might get paid.

- the lawyers who did no cutting edge work and made no useful products are getting paid

- regular folk might have to pay more for j&j products

Few winners, and not the winners I would have wanted

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

#252

Post by respondo2134 » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 3:56 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #105

teraflop wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

So how come J&J just paid a dividend? Shouldn't that money be being given to claimant's?

They haven't settled yet. You don't pay out while the case is being worked out, and paid to the claimant's what?

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

#253

Post by respondo2134 » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 3:59 PM UTC

hkt wrote: post #85

FireBeyond wrote: post #72

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.

[flagged]

I don't think you really understand what "Limited liability" means, nor who these supposed capitalists are. All those public pension plans & unionized retirement funds probably appreciate that they're not on the hook for unlimited liability from J&J.

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

#254

Post by respondo2134 » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:00 PM UTC

scarface_74 wrote: post #218

pessimizer wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wealthiest 10% own 89% of stocks.

And according to a sibling link, 59% have some money in stocks. How many public sector workers for instance who have pensions or retirees who have dividend paying stocks like J and J do you think are cheering for those “evil capitalists pigs” to go bankrupt?

>>How many public sector workers for instance who have pensions or retirees who have dividend paying stocks like J and J

All of them.

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

#255

Post by scott_w » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

caditinpiscinam wrote: post #232

scott_w wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what I said and you’d know that if you read my response or the Matt Levine article quoted by many people here.

As I understand it, the article describes how, for companies that are going bankrupt, handling victim payouts through bankruptcy is more equitable, since it considers the situation holistically, rather than on a first-come first-serve basis. However, for companies like J&J that aren't actually going bankrupt, this process also allows them to protect their business and to pay less than they would normally. Otherwise,…

> this process also allows them to protect their business

Obviously, yes.

> to pay less than they would normally.

Not necessarily.

You missed the part where they have a specialist court divide up the claims in a single go, rather than have ad-hoc juries hand out different awards to different claimants.

> aren't actually going bankrupt

You’re missing the part that this is kind of allowed in Texas courts. It’s not unrestricted - the court kicked back the first attempt.

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

#256

Post by autoexec » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

carlivar wrote: post #222

autoexec wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The basic idea of bankruptcy is that if you have a company with $1,000 of assets and $2,000 of liabilities, you can’t pay back everyone everything you owe them. You could just pay back the first creditors who show up and ask for their money back, until the $1,000 is gone, and then give the remaining creditors zero, but that seems unfair I'm entirely unconvinced that J&J couldn't pay back everything they owe, to eve…

> I'm entirely unconvinced that J&J couldn't pay back everything they owe How much is this? I thought we don't know yet since so much is still under litigation.

Which is why you shouldn't be convinced that J&J couldn't pay what they'll owe either. Maybe it will end up that I'm wrong, and the bankruptcy would be necessary, but I have no reason to think that's the case right now. Right now this looks like they're just gaming the system for their own benefit, and not simply doing their best to make sure that their victims (whose well-being they clearly didn't care about while they were being poisoned) are all paid fairly. The idea that J&J is going out their way to apply clever legal loopholes just to protect the people they've been intentionally killing is beyond absurd.

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

#257

Post by ClumsyPilot » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:10 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #201

wiz21c wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is assuming the first 10 victims are going to act in a selfish way. That's basically assuming victims behave like companies (which must be selfish because their management has to protect them). That's despicable.

> That's despicable. What's despicable? That people would operate in their own self-interest, without regard to potential harm that is not in any way their fault coming to people they've never met? Or the "assumption" that people would behave that way? If acknowledging how people normally behave, especially when there's no moral obligation for them to behave otherwise, seems despicable , a lot of reality will become…

> That people would operate in their own self-interest, without regard to potential harm that is not in any way their fault coming to people they've never met?

We gave a name for that, it's calles psychopathy.

"According to a study conducted by forensic psychologist Nathan Brooks from Bond University, around one in five corporate bosses have clinically significant psychopathic traits. This proportion is similar to that among prisoners. Journalist Jon Ronson found that CEOs are four times more likely to be psychopaths than the average person."

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

#258

Post by bagacrap » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:12 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #105

teraflop wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

So how come J&J just paid a dividend? Shouldn't that money be being given to claimant's?

In a sense, the claimants are becoming shareholders of this company. That is, like shareholders, they have a claim to a certain portion of future cash flows. Like shareholders, they should be hoping that the business continues to thrive so that their claims can be paid out.

The decision not to cut dividends in the face of an earnings shock is a pretty common one and not generally a sign of an executive team attempting to enrich themselves. It's more of a sign to shareholders that the executive team has faith in the robustness of the business, which helps if the goal is to survive the present difficulties.

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

#259

Post by tedivm » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:15 PM UTC

boringg wrote: post #185

wiz21c wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and then it may be easier to convince one judge than a dozen. Isn't it ?

Potentially but it's also a waste of our judicial system resources to have 12 identical cases going at the same time. However if you like paying for legal admin fees on both side its a great way to make sure lawyers get paid.

There are other ways to accomplish this other than bankruptcy. Judges combine cases together all the time.

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

#260

Post by unyttigfjelltol » Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 4:15 PM UTC

somenits wrote: post #155

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, it's a game of three-card monte. Glad Matt is confident he can play and win, always the optimist.

Are you proud of your ignorance? Seems like you're not interested in understanding, just in continuing to feel outraged.

Ok, no "outrage" here @somenits. This is a variation on a "bad bank" scheme that normally is suggested only where jettisoning the toxic liabilities from the main entity will facilitate a government bailout of the resulting "bad bank". That's what makes the scheme work, normally. There isn't a bailout on the way for J+J's bad bank, and the closest suggestion of any value-creation from the manuver comes from disassociating the consumer brand from consumer injuries they allegedly caused. However, that doesn't sound like a compelling case for such a remarkable corporate manuver.

So then, what we are left with is a "bad bank" scheme that is devoid of a compelling legitimate justification, which you yourself do not offer. This naturally raises an inference that J+J hopes to cram down tort claims via the maneuver. Perhaps the cram-down is in administrative overhead associated with litigation. Maybe it's some kind of mismatch in claim acceptance or approval criteria. None of the materials explain, and while I adore Matt's writing the bottom line is it looks like a shell game and that's from someone with no "outrage" whatever involved.