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

141–150 of 245 posts

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

#141

Post by triceratops »

reenorap wrote: post #131
triceratops wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhat different circumstances. Summarizing Matt Levine's various columns on the issue from memory: 1. J&J lost a lawsuit about talc and the winner was awarded $Xb (or maybe $XXXm, my memory is fuzzy) in damages. 2. J&J transferred $XXb to a new company. 3. It let the new company take on current and future liabilities for judgements on the talc issue. 4. J&J then had the new company declare bankruptcy. The bankrupt…

I'm not sure what you mean. I think we are saying the same thing. The strategy to use Texas Two Step failed in 2025 and J&J gave up, and now they are going back to the regular way of resolving the litigation.

The thread we're in started with the discussion of fraudulent transfers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47220263

You said the Texas Two Step can't be used for fraudulent transfers (or at least, that's how I interpreted) and offered J&J's case as an example. My reply to that is J&J's Texas Two Step failed for a different reason, unrelated to fraudulent transfers.

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

#143

Post by nradov »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #122
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?

North Dakota jury breaking things to please Daddy T. On a larger scale, jury trials for defamation are a ticking time bomb catastrophe, long term incompatible with free speech. Source: was on a defamation jury and it was an utter clown fiesta and pretty close to ended my remaining faith in the US legal system and the population as a whole.

Jury trials for defamation have been a thing since forever and haven't caused a catastrophe yet. Jury trials occasionally get things wrong as a matter of law, which is why we have an appeals process.

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

#144

Post by renewiltord »

trimethylpurine wrote: post #26

It would be very easy for an energy company to make hundreds of thousands of donations through "private supporters" to Greenpeace so as to cause problems for their competitors without liability, including defamation, and violent protests. They could be profiting by encouraging angry kids to go ruin their lives, and there would be no consequences for the executives behind it all. In fact, if this were actually happeni…

Look at who Just Stop Oil is funded by and whether you think people like their actions.

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

#145

Post by JumpCrisscross »

docdeek wrote: post #88
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider, why is this a credible institution over the jury and judge?

I can't speak to the institution but the only public statements on their website relate to this particular trial. It could be this is the first ever trial they have monitored in this way; it might also be a group that will only ever monitor this one trial.

I guess I was expecting a Matt Levine-style breakdown of why the trial was run improperly and why an appellate court would be expected to strike it down. Instead we have vague statements that could have come from an elected’s staff.

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

#146

Post by nradov »

oofbey wrote: post #8

I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…

I agree. In the long term we need to reduce fossil fuel usage but in the short term, restricting pipeline construction means that more petroleum products are transported by rail cars which is a lot dirtier and more dangerous. We have to take a pragmatic harm minimization approach rather than being idealistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Union_Pacific_oil_train_f...

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

#147

Post by triceratops »

FireBeyond wrote: post #137
triceratops wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhat different circumstances. Summarizing Matt Levine's various columns on the issue from memory: 1. J&J lost a lawsuit about talc and the winner was awarded $Xb (or maybe $XXXm, my memory is fuzzy) in damages. 2. J&J transferred $XXb to a new company. 3. It let the new company take on current and future liabilities for judgements on the talc issue. 4. J&J then had the new company declare bankruptcy. The bankrupt…

Nah, Matt Levine is an absolute Texas Two Step apologist, something that made me lose a lot of respect for him. He repeatedly contorts himself into pretzels trying to defend it (why?) and into equal pretzels avoiding exploring the two elephants in the rule: 1. He (and those involved) claim that the process is "actually, truly, intended to be solely for the benefit of the plaintiffs suing us", and that defendants are…

> JJCI was funded to the tune of $2B. Slightly less than the $61.5B of liability, you'll agree

Your numbers are all wrong.

Here's a law firm's summary of all the judgments to date against J&J: https://www.sokolovelaw.com/product-liability/talcum-powder/...

These don't add up anywhere close to $10b, let alone $61.5b.

$61.5b is the amount that J&J ultimately agreed to pay the new company (LTL) that it spun off to take over the liabilities.

This is from the court that rejected the bankruptcy:

"we cannot agree LTL was in financial distress when it filed its Chapter 11 petition. The value and quality of its assets, which include a roughly $61.5 billion payment right against J&J and New Consumer, make this holding untenable."

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/222003p.pdf

My translation: "This new company can get up to $61.5b from J&J but says it's in financial straits. Bankruptcy denied."

I'm aware the Texas Two Step is used by companies to get out of paying what they legally owe. It's unclear to me if this particular case is a good example of that today because J&J has committed to paying at least $61.5b and that's much more than the judgements against them.

If in 20 years all the judgements end up being more like $80b and J&J says "Whoopsie, money's run out" then I guess we can call shenanigans.

I don't know what Matt Levine has said about the Texas Two Step outside of this case.

> JJCI re-filed bankruptcy proceedings three hours later

What did they change in their application? What happened to the new filing?

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

#148

Post by oofbey »

thecrash wrote: post #37
oofbey wrote: post #8

I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…

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…

I think our society would be better off if everybody did less incitement in their political dialogue. It's become all too common for political discourse to become unhinged. So in that sense, I think this precedent is also fine.

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

#149

Post by tototrains »

morkalork wrote: post #66
trimethylpurine wrote: post #26

It would be very easy for an energy company to make hundreds of thousands of donations through "private supporters" to Greenpeace so as to cause problems for their competitors without liability, including defamation, and violent protests. They could be profiting by encouraging angry kids to go ruin their lives, and there would be no consequences for the executives behind it all. In fact, if this were actually happeni…

That's a hell of a cynnical conspiracy but then again, people like Jill Stein exist.

Mossad is trafficking children to billionaires for blackmail material, and it's just led directly to a war on Iran because the president of the US is in CSAM.

No conspiracy is too cynical. If you can think of it, they can think of it.

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

#150

Post by terminalshort »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #111
some_random wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're a bunch of lifetime activists who spun up an authoritative sounding NGO that has done literally nothing else, but yeah muh corruption.

Oil companies have been suppressing climate change research for decades to keep cooking the earth for profits. Is that not corruption? I suppose if you are economically exposed to these gains, don’t believe in climate change, and/or won’t be here for the bad times from this, the facts may not matter to your mental model. The facts remain that climate change is real and oil companies are doing their best to extract ev…

Oil companies haven't done a damn thing. We are the cause of global warming. Every time we pump gas into our car, buy anything that came from far away, or use any technology dependent on oil. Blaming oil companies is childish garbage people do to avoid recognizing their personal share of the responsibility.
Post reply on HN