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

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

#331

Post by FireBeyond » Wed, Jul 19, 2023, 11:47 PM UTC

somenits wrote: post #324

skeaker wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, GP makes a fair point. If it were true that all this does is benefit claimants and plaintiffs, the adversaries of the one taking the action, why would they do it?

Of course it would benefit J&J too. You get to consolidate your cases in one court. You get to be in federal court, which is by conventional wisdom believed to be more defendant-friendly. You get to achieve legal certainty in a shorter period of time. It also benefits all the plaintiffs who weren't early to the party, since they are guaranteed a slice of the pie (if they win), instead of the first few successful plai…

> It also benefits all the plaintiffs who weren't early to the party, since they are guaranteed a slice of the pie (if they win), instead of the first few successful plaintiffs eating the whole thing.

The pie is much smaller though. Georgia Pacific was faced with 62,000+ claims. They went through this same process. Spun off their subsidiary. "Pledged" to fund it with an "initial" billion dollars, and that GP would fund all claims.

Never happened. They actually only funded $175M. Less than $3,000 per claimant for asbestos related injuries. Less than $3,000 before legal fees.

And there was nothing defendants could do, because there was no legal obligation that could be created to force GP to fully fund. "That entity is independent and is in bankruptcy. So sad, too bad."

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

#332

Post by Panzer04 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 12:28 AM UTC

littlestymaar wrote: post #313

Panzer04 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way have they done that? I'm sure there.must be a massive lawsuit about it.

Didn't you even skim the article? There's a short summary at the beginning: > J&J is facing more than 38,000 lawsuits alleging that the company's talc products, including its Baby Powder, were contaminated by asbestos and caused cancers including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma

Right, but these judgements have yet to be levied. The problem they are solving with this maneuver is ensuring a common/fair result for the people suing, without the "unreasonable" step of declaring bankruptcy on the company as a whole without actual obligations.

As other comments have mentioned, Matt Levine has an excellent article describing the logic behind their actions.

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

#333

Post by somenits » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:11 AM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #331

somenits wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it would benefit J&J too. You get to consolidate your cases in one court. You get to be in federal court, which is by conventional wisdom believed to be more defendant-friendly. You get to achieve legal certainty in a shorter period of time. It also benefits all the plaintiffs who weren't early to the party, since they are guaranteed a slice of the pie (if they win), instead of the first few successful plai…

> It also benefits all the plaintiffs who weren't early to the party, since they are guaranteed a slice of the pie (if they win), instead of the first few successful plaintiffs eating the whole thing. The pie is much smaller though. Georgia Pacific was faced with 62,000+ claims. They went through this same process. Spun off their subsidiary. "Pledged" to fund it with an "initial" billion dollars, and that GP would fu…

Please see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36794762

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

#334

Post by pas » Tue, Jul 25, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

DrScientist wrote: post #153

pas wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research might be hard, harder than whatever else the rest of the world is doing, but the tenure system is not giving us the best researchers. It rewards those that are at the right place at the right time, it's mostly luck of the current spectacle, and then it sets those "accomplished" people up for failure as they eventually see their luck running out. They are very motivated to use less and less ethical tools for…

Eh? Why does having job security motivate you to make stuff up - incidentally, the only way you might actually lose your job?

not the job security, but the same thing that is required to get into that job with the job security

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

#335

Post by FireBeyond » Tue, Jul 25, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

bagacrap wrote: post #258

londons_explore wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 attemptin…

> 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.

This is an extremely perverse incentive and shows how fundamentally broken some of these mechanics are.

"You injured me, and need to compensate me. But in order to do so I have to hope you continue to prosper, potentially injuring others along the way, so I get my compensation. I can choose between getting you shut down, but potentially not being compensated, or being compensated but knowing that you go on to be able to do this to others."

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

#336

Post by FireBeyond » Tue, Jul 25, 2023, 5:42 PM UTC

ankit219 wrote: post #264

shkkmo wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. It creates fairness among victims by removing their rights to seek higher damages via their own court cases. This "fairness" is only needed if the total amount of judgements exceeds what J&J can pay. In which case it is J&J which should be declaring bank…

> It creates fairness among victims by removing their rights to seek higher damages via their own court cases How is it fair if the first victim gets 10M in damages, but the 100,000th victim does not, given each lawsuit proceeds differently? It's obviously not a race, and getting less/more damages based on the order you filed a lawsuit is surely not the best way. (Damages via settlement or decided by jury). Even in t…

> Also, the judge agreed with J&J's idea, but found the filing to be premature.

And when he dismissed the filing, J&J changed some numbers and refiled the very same day. That obviously wasn't the message that they got out of the judge's ruling.