8 ms·

Sued for $17 Billion, ordered to pay 1/34th of that. In State court, by The State. I don't know if that counts as a "landmark ruling", but maybe it will. We'l

Sued for $17 Billion, ordered to pay 1/34th of that. In State court, by The State. I don't know if that counts as a "landmark ruling", but maybe it will. We'll have to wait and see if anyone else crashes up on the rocks.

ajxs 7y ago
I had the same thought. I'm not an American, and not a lawyer, but doesn't the ruling in this case count as precedent that will allow others states to pursue lawsuits against them?
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  This was our lowest level of state court. I don't think it even counts as precedent in other courts in Oklahoma, though it can probably be viewed as persuasive. This ruling has no bearing in other states. It does give a good roadmap for how to sue and win against J&J though. EDIT: There might be a way to use this case as a basis for collateral estoppel, meaning that J&J would have a harder time disputing the liability (since they were decided to be liable in this case) but I'm not sure if that applies across state lines.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    The "precedent" at issue is not about the ruling as a matter of common law but as an indicator of verdicts to come.
    - henryfjordan 7y ago
      "precedent" is a term of art in law. It strictly means another court HAS to make the same ruling given the same/similar facts.
      - staticautomatic 7y ago
        This particular case has not set such a precedent.
  - egdod 7y ago
    > There might be a way to use this case as a basis for collateral estoppel, meaning that J&J would have a harder time disputing the liability (since they were decided to be liable in this case) but I'm not sure if that applies across state lines. I've never heard of someone making this argument successfully.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I'm not an American, and not a lawyer, but doesn't the ruling in this case count as precedent that will allow others states to pursue lawsuits against them? No, because: (1) trial (as opposed to appellate) court rulings have almost no weight as precedent, and (2) state court rulings on state law issues have almost no weight as precedent for courts in other states applying different state laws, and (3) precedent doesn't allow or bar states or other litigants from pursuing cases, it just impacts the expected results.
henryfjordan 7y ago
You always sue for more than you think you deserve to win, that's just how that works. Why lowball yourself? The real indicator is share-price being up 2% after the ruling. The investors think J&J got off easy.
- koolba 7y ago
  Certainty alone is worth a bump in share price.
  - Judgmentality 7y ago
    But it has to override the impact of the ruling. I'm pretty sure if they'd been fined the full $17 billion that the share price would have declined quite a bit.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  Only if J&J gets no further judgments after this one.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    The market had already priced in all the future judgments, it's not like these lawsuits are a secret.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > The market had already priced in all the future judgments The market has already priced in what it anticipates the future judgements will be (but that expectation may be wrong; for instance it could be $0—in which case GPs only if there are no future judgements is literally correct—but there may turn out to be substantial future judgements.) If the market had already priced in all future events, the price would never move.
      - dllthomas 7y ago
staticautomatic 7y ago
Usually if a defendant loses but the damage award is a tenth or less of the ask, the defendant considers it something of a win. A couple times I've seen defendants who were sued for, say, $60M, get hit for $6M, and call it a good outcome. The calculus might be different at this scale, but probably not by much. The significance of this verdict has more to do with it being a bellwether trial with an encouraging outcome for the plaintiffs. Then again, it was a bench trial, where you usually expect verdicts to be smaller than with juries.
dondawest 7y ago
The landmark is how little they paid. IMO, the fine is appropriate because J&J was an inappropriate scapegoat in the first place — the damage they did is nothing compared to Purdue, for example.
- favorited 7y ago
  Purdue and Teva were part of the same suit, and they both settled. J&J isn't being scapegoated, they just decided to roll the dice and take it to trial.
  - jfk13 7y ago
    If it's true that "the damage they did is nothing compared to Purdue, for example", then doesn't this suggest that Purdue was given an outrageously lenient settlement? Why aren't we all up in arms protesting that?
Gatsky 7y ago
It’s basically the case that there are no effective punishments for corporate entities. The argument has been made elsewhere for a corporate ‘death penalty’, an actual destruction of value, brand and IP and wholesale confiscation of assets. Obviously implementation would be an issue, but imagine if there was even a possibility J&J could be sentenced to ‘corp-death’ for its role in the opioid crisis. The share price wouldn’t be going up, that’s for sure. Otherwise I think we’ll just keep being surprised by corporate amorality, over and over again.
- kortilla 7y ago
  There does not need to be a special case. Just higher penalties and fines.
  - bsder 7y ago
    If you sent a normally functioning company into a forced bankruptcy, another company will be more than willing to pick up the assets, manufacturing, and jobs while wiping out the top management and investors.
    - dannyw 7y ago
      And wiping out the top management and investors is exactly the incentive you need so companies seek to avoid forced bankruptcy. Jobs, capital assets, and technology are preserved. I fail to see how this is a disadvantage. Volkswagon should have been hit with a $1 trillion dollar fine, and for every shareholder and executive to be completely wiped out.
      - bostonpete 7y ago
        I assume that was bsder's point.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      And that’s a good thing. The company that picks it up wouldn’t want the same thing to happen to itself so it would stop the bad behavior.
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
IANAL and don't know the case, but I suspect the correct strategy is to sue for as much as you can reasonably justify. If you can spin a story that outlines how you could have suffered 17 billion in damages, it wouldn't make sense to sue for anything less if you have the resources to file the suit. Or would it?
zaroth 7y ago
$17 billion is what OK said it would cost to manage the crisis over the next 20-30 years. J&J was only 1% of the market for these types of drugs, and also this; > Oklahoma wanted J&J to help it address the epidemic for the next 30 years by funding addiction treatment and prevention programs. > Balkman said in his written ruling that the award covered only one year of addressing the crisis because Oklahoma did not demonstrate the time and costs needed beyond that. So it’s worth considering the amount that J&J was fined in that context.

ajxs 7y ago

I had the same thought. I'm not an American, and not a lawyer, but doesn't the ruling in this case count as precedent that will allow others states to pursue lawsuits against them?

henryfjordan 7y ago
This was our lowest level of state court. I don't think it even counts as precedent in other courts in Oklahoma, though it can probably be viewed as persuasive. This ruling has no bearing in other states. It does give a good roadmap for how to sue and win against J&J though. EDIT: There might be a way to use this case as a basis for collateral estoppel, meaning that J&J would have a harder time disputing the liability (since they were decided to be liable in this case) but I'm not sure if that applies across state lines.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  The "precedent" at issue is not about the ruling as a matter of common law but as an indicator of verdicts to come.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    "precedent" is a term of art in law. It strictly means another court HAS to make the same ruling given the same/similar facts.
    - staticautomatic 7y ago
      This particular case has not set such a precedent.
- egdod 7y ago
  > There might be a way to use this case as a basis for collateral estoppel, meaning that J&J would have a harder time disputing the liability (since they were decided to be liable in this case) but I'm not sure if that applies across state lines. I've never heard of someone making this argument successfully.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I'm not an American, and not a lawyer, but doesn't the ruling in this case count as precedent that will allow others states to pursue lawsuits against them? No, because: (1) trial (as opposed to appellate) court rulings have almost no weight as precedent, and (2) state court rulings on state law issues have almost no weight as precedent for courts in other states applying different state laws, and (3) precedent doesn't allow or bar states or other litigants from pursuing cases, it just impacts the expected results.

henryfjordan 7y ago

You always sue for more than you think you deserve to win, that's just how that works. Why lowball yourself? The real indicator is share-price being up 2% after the ruling. The investors think J&J got off easy.

koolba 7y ago
Certainty alone is worth a bump in share price.
- Judgmentality 7y ago
  But it has to override the impact of the ruling. I'm pretty sure if they'd been fined the full $17 billion that the share price would have declined quite a bit.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Only if J&J gets no further judgments after this one.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  The market had already priced in all the future judgments, it's not like these lawsuits are a secret.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The market had already priced in all the future judgments The market has already priced in what it anticipates the future judgements will be (but that expectation may be wrong; for instance it could be $0—in which case GPs only if there are no future judgements is literally correct—but there may turn out to be substantial future judgements.) If the market had already priced in all future events, the price would never move.
    - dllthomas 7y ago

staticautomatic 7y ago

Usually if a defendant loses but the damage award is a tenth or less of the ask, the defendant considers it something of a win. A couple times I've seen defendants who were sued for, say, $60M, get hit for $6M, and call it a good outcome. The calculus might be different at this scale, but probably not by much. The significance of this verdict has more to do with it being a bellwether trial with an encouraging outcome for the plaintiffs. Then again, it was a bench trial, where you usually expect verdicts to be smaller than with juries.

dondawest 7y ago

The landmark is how little they paid. IMO, the fine is appropriate because J&J was an inappropriate scapegoat in the first place — the damage they did is nothing compared to Purdue, for example.

favorited 7y ago
Purdue and Teva were part of the same suit, and they both settled. J&J isn't being scapegoated, they just decided to roll the dice and take it to trial.
- jfk13 7y ago
  If it's true that "the damage they did is nothing compared to Purdue, for example", then doesn't this suggest that Purdue was given an outrageously lenient settlement? Why aren't we all up in arms protesting that?

Gatsky 7y ago

It’s basically the case that there are no effective punishments for corporate entities. The argument has been made elsewhere for a corporate ‘death penalty’, an actual destruction of value, brand and IP and wholesale confiscation of assets. Obviously implementation would be an issue, but imagine if there was even a possibility J&J could be sentenced to ‘corp-death’ for its role in the opioid crisis. The share price wouldn’t be going up, that’s for sure. Otherwise I think we’ll just keep being surprised by corporate amorality, over and over again.

kortilla 7y ago
There does not need to be a special case. Just higher penalties and fines.
- bsder 7y ago
  If you sent a normally functioning company into a forced bankruptcy, another company will be more than willing to pick up the assets, manufacturing, and jobs while wiping out the top management and investors.
  - dannyw 7y ago
    And wiping out the top management and investors is exactly the incentive you need so companies seek to avoid forced bankruptcy. Jobs, capital assets, and technology are preserved. I fail to see how this is a disadvantage. Volkswagon should have been hit with a $1 trillion dollar fine, and for every shareholder and executive to be completely wiped out.
    - bostonpete 7y ago
      I assume that was bsder's point.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    And that’s a good thing. The company that picks it up wouldn’t want the same thing to happen to itself so it would stop the bad behavior.

PopeDotNinja 7y ago

IANAL and don't know the case, but I suspect the correct strategy is to sue for as much as you can reasonably justify. If you can spin a story that outlines how you could have suffered 17 billion in damages, it wouldn't make sense to sue for anything less if you have the resources to file the suit. Or would it?

zaroth 7y ago

$17 billion is what OK said it would cost to manage the crisis over the next 20-30 years. J&J was only 1% of the market for these types of drugs, and also this; > Oklahoma wanted J&J to help it address the epidemic for the next 30 years by funding addiction treatment and prevention programs. > Balkman said in his written ruling that the award covered only one year of addressing the crisis because Oklahoma did not demonstrate the time and costs needed beyond that. So it’s worth considering the amount that J&J was fined in that context.