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

Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

northdakotamonitor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 245 posts

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#191

Post by terminalshort »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #184
terminalshort wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does any of that have to do with anything? > If you want to insist that only greedy corporations could have made portable hand-held network connected computing devices possible, then make that point. It burns oil and emits CO2. Doesn't matter who makes it or if they are "greedy." Physics doesn't care about human emotions. > If you want to insist that there could be no automobile or refueling system without a sys…

The GP made an observation about "greedy corporations". You sarcastically wrote > Posted from your iphone while driving to the gas station to fill up? Where did you fly to for your last vacation? as if using any of those technologies means that you have no standing to criticize "greedy corporations". I've pointed out the (potential) disconnect between the technologies and the corporations, and you've now wandered off…

Nice try, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for your deflection. GP did not complain about "greedy corporations." He complained about "greedy corporations destroying our planet." They aren't destroying our planet. You, GP, and I are destroying our planet. But unlike you and GP, I am an adult and I don't try to blame other people for my actions.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#192

Post by nitwit005 »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #68
foolfoolz wrote: post #3

> Greenpeace maintains it only had six employees visit the protest camps, and that all worked for Greenpeace USA, not Greenpeace Fund or Greenpeace International. > The jury found Greenpeace USA liable for almost all claims. how does this happen? did greenepeace just run a bad trial? or lose all public trust?

> Greenpeace USA, not Greenpeace Fund or Greenpeace International Why is something like this allowed to exist... Stacking entities and funneling wealth around in the guise of a noble cause.

Countries usually require you to create a local corporation, non-profit, or similar, if you have any revenue or donations. The local entity is what will file the tax paperwork.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#193

Post by terminalshort »

jacquesm wrote: post #118
lkbm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They sure do. They've also been sued for it, too, because it's bad. It's also bad for Greenpeace to do it.

There is absolutely no way the damage is that large and this seems to be mostly a revenge action by a community in which Greenpeace - or any other environmental organization - would never get a fair trial to begin with.

The article doesn't mention it, but it could be punitive damages

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#194

Post by terminalshort »

Schmerika wrote: post #181

[flagged]

> maybe telling some protesters to engage in direct action against a company leaking oil into their water supply

Sounds like you put the maybe in the wrong place. The jury found that they did do that. And you have no evidence whatsoever that they leaked any oil into the water supply.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#195

Post by oofbey »

stackedinserter wrote: post #162
thecrash wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is not important because of Greenpeace, it's important because of the implications for free speech in the US. They are not being bankrupted because they took the wrong stance on nuclear, they're being bankrupted for supposed defamation and incitement against a major energy corporation. This is a precedent that will be used to attack all kinds of civil society organizations when they threaten the profits of…

What does setting things on fire have to do with freedom of speech?

I think this is how it goes: The people who set things on fire weren't directly associated with Greenpeace. But the argument is that Greenpeace's rhetoric incited them to do so. So it becomes a freedom of speech issue. If you tell people something is evil and must be burned, are you responsible for that thing getting torched?

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#196

Post by rayiner »

triceratops wrote: post #182
rayiner wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally true, but one key point. Under bankruptcy law, you can give liabilities to a subsidiary, but you have to give the subsidiary enough money to pay the anticipated liabilities. That’s the reason why J&J gave the subsidiary so much money. Otherwise, the bankruptcy would have been dismissed as a fraudulent transfer. The bankruptcy court approved the bankruptcy filing, but on appeal the Third Circuit dismissed th…

> So the Texas Two-Step supports the idea that companies can’t just put liabilities in a subsidiary and put it into bankruptcy. The Texas Two-Step is an effort to work around that rule. Sorry I'm having trouble parsing this because the first and second sentences seem to contradict each other. Or I'm just bad at reading. > Disclosure: I was on the team that won the appeal against J&J on this issue That's actually pret…

> Sorry I'm having trouble parsing this because the first and second sentences seem to contradict each other. Or I'm just bad at reading.

Sorry, I was unclear. You have a law that says that pre-bankruptcy transfers that were made to avoid liability can be voided: 11 USC 548: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/548. So say J&J put the liabilities into a subsidiary, but didn’t give it a check. The creditors would have been able to void the transfer of liability and give it back to J&J by proving that J&J transferred the liabilities that the subsidiary couldn’t pay.

To work around that, J&J did a particular formulation of the Texas Two-Step where it gave the subsidiary a big check to pay for the anticipated liabilities. The fact that J&J had to do that shows that the fraudulent transfer law does have some teeth. It was the reason J&J had to take the approach that ultimately got the subsidiary kicked out of bankruptcy court.

> If I may ask, given that LTL was funded with many multiples of its liabilities, why was the bankruptcy appealed

So the amicus brief from Public Justice—which I had no involvement with—does a good job of explaining the public interest concerns: https://www.tzlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022.07.0.... Bankruptcy court is a debtor-friendly forum and gives debtors tremendous leverage over creditors.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#197

Post by triceratops »

rayiner wrote: post #196
triceratops wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the Texas Two-Step supports the idea that companies can’t just put liabilities in a subsidiary and put it into bankruptcy. The Texas Two-Step is an effort to work around that rule. Sorry I'm having trouble parsing this because the first and second sentences seem to contradict each other. Or I'm just bad at reading. > Disclosure: I was on the team that won the appeal against J&J on this issue That's actually pret…

> Sorry I'm having trouble parsing this because the first and second sentences seem to contradict each other. Or I'm just bad at reading. Sorry, I was unclear. You have a law that says that pre-bankruptcy transfers that were made to avoid liability can be voided: 11 USC 548: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/548 . So say J&J put the liabilities into a subsidiary, but didn’t give it a check. The creditors wou…

> The bankruptcy court didn’t agree that having too much money was a grounds for dismissing the bankruptcy filing. The appellate court reversed, finding that a company that had too much money was legally precluded from filing for bankruptcy.

I understood that. My question was why challenge the bankruptcy if there was apparently already enough money for everyone who won? Why not just go to bankruptcy court and pick up your check?

EDIT: Looks like this question was answered with an edit to the post I replied. Thanks!

Another commenter https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47224462 said that

1. funding commitments have been unenforceable in other Texas two step bankruptcies

2. allowing a bankruptcy court to figure out payments would turn all the thousands of plaintiffs' cases into a defacto class action (my understanding of what this person wrote).

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#198

Post by msy »

terminalshort wrote: post #186
msy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming oil companies for the extremely well documented history of suppression of research and action into the impact of climate change is not childish.

It is childish to think that anything would have been different if this research was released.

Exactly. I mean look what happened when we worked out CFCs were destroying the ozone layer through rigorous scientific research and public disclosure.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#199

Post by rayiner »

magicalist wrote: post #100
rayiner wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The protests involved what activists call “direct action,” which involves trespassing on private property, blockading workers, or damaging equipment in an effort to prevent otherwise lawful activity. For example, activists admitted to setting fire to equipment and pipeline valves in an effort to stop construction: https://www.kcci.com/article/2-women-admit-to-causing-damage... . That’s legally straightforward conduct…

> The legal issue here is that there should be a very high bar for saying that first amendment protected speech amounts to incitement. But that’s not a principle of law as far as I’m aware. I don't understand the distinction you're making here. Isn't there being a high bar for saying that first amendment protected speech amounts to incitement literally a principle of modern first amendment law (Brandenburg etc)? > So…

The exact issue in Brandenburg was about how specific the speech has to be. Broadly saying people should do stuff is different from advocating specific illegal conduct against a specific target. That’s harder to apply here because there’s a specific target. The issue here is more: how influential does the speech need to be on the people who actually took the illegal action. I think the standard should be so high you would need some sort of vicarious liability. Like you hired people to set fires.

> Even the way you write this makes it sound like you know it's problematic too.

That was intentional.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#200

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

terminalshort wrote: post #191
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP made an observation about "greedy corporations". You sarcastically wrote > Posted from your iphone while driving to the gas station to fill up? Where did you fly to for your last vacation? as if using any of those technologies means that you have no standing to criticize "greedy corporations". I've pointed out the (potential) disconnect between the technologies and the corporations, and you've now wandered off…

Nice try, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for your deflection. GP did not complain about "greedy corporations." He complained about "greedy corporations destroying our planet." They aren't destroying our planet. You, GP, and I are destroying our planet. But unlike you and GP, I am an adult and I don't try to blame other people for my actions.

Once again, you're making an implicit claim about all the nice things in contemporary civilization (or least the list you gave), in this case that their mere existence is "destroying our planet". But you haven't made that case, and it is far from obvious that it is true. It could be true ... but I'm also to the imagined version of a political & economic system that had still produced portable hand-held network connected computing devices and long distance personal transportation vehicles without "destroying our planet".

What I cannot imagine, however, is an alternative that still featured "greedy corporations" without the "destroying our planet" part.

Post reply on HN