3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation
1–10 of 260 posts
Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation
#2Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation
#3Johnson and Johnson tried to spin up a subsidiary and shift all the blame to it for including asbestos in talcum powder for decades. Thankfully, the courts saw through the move and made them pay billions of dollars too
Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation
#4Johnson and Johnson tried to spin up a subsidiary and shift all the blame to it for including asbestos in talcum powder for decades. Thankfully, the courts saw through the move and made them pay billions of dollars too
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.
Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation
#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 important materials as I understand it, so it's not like they can just get erased from the market. But what does accountability actually mean in this context?
Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation
#6> 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…
Government bailout, it's clearly too big to fail
Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation
#7> 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…
There’s some irony that one of the M is for Mining - the poster boy for superfund cleanups. I guess this would be an ultrafund
Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation
#8> 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…
Government bailout, it's clearly too big to fail
Socialization.
Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation
#9The 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.
Re: 3M heads to trial in ‘existential’ $143B forever-chemicals litigation
#10> 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…
Well if the company goes bankrupt, theoretically other companies can buy e.g. 3M's patents / processes / subsidiaries and continue their production. THe company isn't unprofitable, so it would be sold off in parts and the proceeds of the sale (theoretically) would go towards settling lawsuits.