3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation • Hacker News Board

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#61

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 5:39 PM UTC

BSEdlMMldESB wrote: post #28

enraged_camel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> disbanding this corporation doesn't undo decades of pollution either. Yes, but it prevents them from harming the public like this in the future, and also serves as a very strong deterrent for others.

or mabye we should be more honest and consider that maybe this is a way for the USA government to fill its coffers back up? (rapping on another comment saying that there's a chance this is a way for the USA government to sell the 'manufacture capacity' that 3M is to other "greener" owners) now that I type this out, I realize that this is perfectly consistent with the behavior of empires. the realization that the alle…

If the government were somehow able to capture the entire market cap of 3M (without any execution slippage, which is obviously an unrealistic assumption), it would be enough to run the federal government for a little over 3 days...

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#62

Post by cwkoss » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

feifan wrote: post #51

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #5

> Financial research firm CreditSights estimates that 3M could ultimately be on the hook for nationwide PFAS cleanup costs of up to $142.7 billion. That’s almost triple the company’s $53 billion market capitalization, and that’s before any personal injury claims and other lawsuits. What does this actually mean? It's just showing off a big number without giving any real context. 3M is the only manufacturer of tons of…

I read that sentence as saying someone came up with a cost estimate of $142.7b to clean up everything, and then there's a comparison to 3M's $53b market cap for scale/comparison.

I don't think all the money in the world could cleanup "everything" that is contaminated with PFAS - it is effectively pervasive in the ecosystem at this point.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#63

Post by hgsgm » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

johnfn wrote: post #33

bastard_op wrote: post #19

So what, they'll pay a few million (even few billion) fine, and go back to doing it anyways. Having grown up as part of the "Maryvale Cancer Cluster" in Arizona in the 70's with DuPont dumping fluorine and other bad things into the well water and giving most of my family leukemia, cancer, and who knows what else. Class action ensued, DuPont lawyers fought it for 30 years, end of the day my dad got a check for $200 do…

Huh? The point of an 'existential' trial is that it's 'existential' i.e. it threatens the existence of the business.

What the plaintiff asks for isn't what they get.

The Sacklers and Purdue did fine even with their extremely intentional opium war against America.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#64

Post by s1artibartfast » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #58

s1artibartfast wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or it might just be sold as a whole to another company, or continue to exist post bankruptcy

Unlikely though. Nobody would want to buy the company whole as that would include all of this liability. Selling of the individual parts to raise funds for paying the debts of the unsold parts of the business entering bankruptcy seems like the only way to go

Breaking it up doesn't change the liability post bankruptcy.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#65

Post by rapht » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

CameronNemo wrote: post #31

slymon99 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They go bankrupt, because their liabilities exceed their assets. There are three main sets of creditors - the US government who are receiving this $142.7 billion, equity shareholders who own $MMM, and bondholders. In a bankruptcy, you arrange levels of creditors by "seniority", where more senior creditors are paid first. In this case, I would imagine the levels of seniority are: 1. The US government 2. Bondholders 3.…

The shareholders shouldn't just get zeroed. There should be a clawback of profits made by 3M since the 1970s. Raid my 401k -- someone has to pay.

Hello, "limited liability company".

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#66

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

CameronNemo wrote: post #31

slymon99 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They go bankrupt, because their liabilities exceed their assets. There are three main sets of creditors - the US government who are receiving this $142.7 billion, equity shareholders who own $MMM, and bondholders. In a bankruptcy, you arrange levels of creditors by "seniority", where more senior creditors are paid first. In this case, I would imagine the levels of seniority are: 1. The US government 2. Bondholders 3.…

The shareholders shouldn't just get zeroed. There should be a clawback of profits made by 3M since the 1970s. Raid my 401k -- someone has to pay.

We'll put you down in the "not a fan of the rule of law" category.

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#67

Post by ok_dad » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

pcurve wrote: post #9

The chemicals in question are of type PFAS and believe it or not, they're still legal to use today, though they're being phased out and banned in a few years. The problem is 3M scientists have know toxicity to human and have withheld the information to the public and regulators. Since 1970s.

Oh boy, this PFAS stuff makes me feel bad because I recall using aqueous film forming foam as deck washing liquid in the Navy. AFFF contains a lot of PFAS, I found out a while ago. We just thought it was a good cleaner. I wonder if I’ll have any personal medical issues from dealing with that stuff in my youth?

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#68

Post by tomatotomato37 » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #40

bastard_op wrote: post #19

So what, they'll pay a few million (even few billion) fine, and go back to doing it anyways. Having grown up as part of the "Maryvale Cancer Cluster" in Arizona in the 70's with DuPont dumping fluorine and other bad things into the well water and giving most of my family leukemia, cancer, and who knows what else. Class action ensued, DuPont lawyers fought it for 30 years, end of the day my dad got a check for $200 do…

I'm always amazed that in cases like this nobody gets crazy and try to get justice themselves. There are so many guns in the US, and we hear about rogue snipers and school shooters, but never about one guy that decided a CEO should pay for his bad deeds in blood. Maybe it shows that the average human being is quite stable and peaceful?

Vigilante justice died down with the phase out of leaded gasoline. One of the effects of people not being so violent and impulsive anymore is that people are not so violent and impulsive anymore

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#69

Post by hgsgm » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

CameronNemo wrote: post #31

slymon99 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They go bankrupt, because their liabilities exceed their assets. There are three main sets of creditors - the US government who are receiving this $142.7 billion, equity shareholders who own $MMM, and bondholders. In a bankruptcy, you arrange levels of creditors by "seniority", where more senior creditors are paid first. In this case, I would imagine the levels of seniority are: 1. The US government 2. Bondholders 3.…

The shareholders shouldn't just get zeroed. There should be a clawback of profits made by 3M since the 1970s. Raid my 401k -- someone has to pay.

Taking the L out of Limited Liability Corporation.

If you paid $100 for a share after the damage was done, who should pay? You, or the shareholder who sold to you?

Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation

#70

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

Jeff_Brown wrote: post #56

kmod wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming those numbers are realized it would mean bankruptcy, essentially, and questions like this are pretty standard and well-thought-about there. IANAL but I think this is why Chapter 11 bankruptcy exists (where you keep the company going because that's valuable) vs Chapter 7 (where you liquidate it). I think the Purdue bankruptcy is similar where the company is somewhat being handed over to the people that were h…

Would it? If they can earn the value of their liabilities in three years, why not just do that?1

How can they do that? Their entire sales for full year 2022 were only $34.2 billion, with adjusted free cash flow of only $4.7 billion.

They literally could not cover the interest charges on a $143B judgment, let alone pay it off in 3 years.