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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 260 posts

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

#71

Post by hgsgm »

paiute wrote: post #16
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'm starting to see a pattern which basically amounts to corporate shakedowns. I think the trend has only been accelerating since Perdue Parma. They will take the money and never do a thing to clean up the chemicals.

Better than not taking the money, at least.

At a minimum it reduces inflation a tiny bit which helps everyone.

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

#72

Post by BiteCode_dev »

npongratz wrote: post #48
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving plasma is actually better if you want to remove PFAS. And giving either is a good thing, so if this can mean people will give 2 or 3 times a year, everybody wins.

Suppose I give plasma or blood, and it removes PFAS from my body. Does it give those PFAS to the recipient of my plasma/blood?

Yes, but:

- it removes only a fraction of it from your body, so it gives only a fraction of it to the recipient.

- if you need a donation, this dose compared to what you get in exchange is usually a very good deal

- some blood don't actually go to people, but is used for manufacturing drugs, science tests or expires

- hopefully people don't get blood transfusions very often and have a blood level of PFAS close to the average and the given blood. Hopefully.

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

#73

Post by clnq »

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.

This trial, if it goes wrong, threatens the existence of life on the planet.

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

#74

Post by arpora »

hackernewds wrote: post #25
delfinom wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

J&J ended up paying $9 billion but they still ended up being allowed to spin a subsidiary to hold that money and essentially take on the liability of future lawsuits or what happens when the money runs out and there are more claims.

What if this subsidiary has $1B in assets? Do they go bankrupt and not have to pay the rest of the $8B?

Would recommend the Matt Levine write-up: https://archive.is/44wfu

In the J&J case, the subsidiary had the right to draw at least ~$60B in order to pay off future lawsuits if the initial subsidiary's assets ran out, so there was never any real risk that it would leave suitholders unpaid. The switch into bankruptcy court is a way to arbitrate and organize the lawsuits, which was overturned because given the right to draw money from the J&J parent co the subsidiary wasn't actually at risk of bankruptcy.

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

#75

Post by TheJoeMan »

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 sympathize with your family’s hurt. Is this case equivalent? DuPont did the dumping into the well water.

3M manufactured a non-stick coating used by thousands of companies on thousands of different products. What is the end game here? They never produce teflon again and industries like biomedical suffer?

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

#76

Post by vkou »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #68
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And yet, you still get 'I hate society and I'm going to shoot up a school/mall/movie theatre/parade/nightclub' terracts on the regular.

It is strange that intersection of 'I'm angry at stuff and want to make people pay', and 'I own guns and I'm going to use them' seems to consistently result in rage and violence against society at large, rather than bad actors in particular.

It's almost as if there's a kind of slant to the propaganda that pushes people into those buckets. Not a lot of unhinged, violent anti-3M/Purdue/Kaiser/DuPont rhetoric on the *chans and in the Q-sphere...

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

#77

Post by clnq »

At these times, it's good to remember that PFAS will very likely kill more people than any terror attack so far. Among cancers, it is a known contributor to obesity and many other diseases.

We go to war over terror attacks. And for this, we probably won't even bankrupt 3M, nor DuPont.

To my mind, it brings into question what qualifies as terrorism. Is it not terrorism if many people die to push the stock price up when it's terrorism if many people die for some other selfish end?

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

#78

Post by nickelpro »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #64
dylan604 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I buy a candy bar from a bankrupt chocolate company I don't inherit any liability from the candy bar.

"Breaking up" a company by selling its assets and distributing the profits to creditors absolutely does vanish the liability.

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

#79

Post by burke »

stickyricky wrote: post #53
Sytten wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are used in all kinds of products that I personaly use everyday from pans to dental floss. And the replacements are not better, they just dont have studies yet that prove they are toxic...

I hope steel pans aren't on that list. I prefer them to non-stick and I'm under the assumption that they're healthier than non-stick pans.

Steel pans—really any pans that just look like metal on the inside—are not made with "forever chemical" coatings.

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

#80

Post by simonster »

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…

It means that the market believes they are unlikely to be on the hook for that amount, or else the market cap would be near-zero. Given 3M's current profits, assets, and liabilities, a 142.7B payout would bankrupt it.
Post reply on HN