5 ms·

> This can lead to unfair results, not for you — who cares about you — but for your victims: If a $1 billion company has killed 100 people, the first 10 who sue

> This can lead to unfair results, not for you — who cares about you — but for your victims: If a $1 billion company has killed 100 people, the first 10 who sue might get $100 million each of damages, leaving nothing for the remaining 90. There is a valid point there, but one could argue it sets up unfair precedent for companies to act in bad faith if they can get off easy.

nl 3y ago
Yes, agreed.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bagacrap 3y ago
How is the business getting off easy in this scenario. It's dissolving. What else can we do to it?
- freetanga 3y ago
  Send execs and board who looked the other way or were negligent to jail? Impede them from similar roles for life? It is a reality in some licensed industries (eg banking)in Europe
  - bigfudge 3y ago
    Not really. Very few people ever go to prison or a censured in this way.
- notimetorelax 3y ago
  The business limited its exposure through the spinoff. J&J as an entity may need to seize to exist to pay back for the damages.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Minor tip: “cease to exist” is the phrase you almost surely intended.
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      True but given the context of J&J's SLAPP suit the verbatim has potential.
- c0nducktr 3y ago
  What? J&J isn't dissolving.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  J&J isn't dissolving. It's still throwing off a billion dollars a month in shareholder dividends, freed from the shackles of any liability.
  - hkt 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - eropple 3y ago
        "Hmm, you raise systemic concerns yet you use the system because you live in a society enmeshed in it" is not a winning argument.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Well, they could always commit their time and a large portion of their resources to a non profit. I bet you dollars to donuts that they work in tech and not for a non profit.
        eropple 3y ago
        "Well they could do things to harm themselves [because we treat non-profit employees like they implicitly have a wealthy spouse or should live in a shoebox]" is also not helping the argument very much. One does not need to be a Stylite to have an opinion on society; comparing the actions of individuals, without significant power or influence, with corporate-fiction persons that come equipped with lobbying arms and sufficiently dispersed decision-making power that nasty shit comes out of them regularly, is not and never persuasive.
        scarface_74 3y ago
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The unfairness isn't in what happens after they do something wrong, it's in how they structure their operations to begin with. The point of limited liability is so that grandpa can invest in an index fund even if he doesn't understand the inner workings of consumer products manufacturing without having to worry that one of the 500 companies in the index will hire a bad manager and have it wipe out not just that investment but his entire retirement account and his house and every other asset. The problem comes when corporations use the same mechanism to isolate their subsidiaries. Foo Corp is making phones that burn down your house and providing financing to buy them with and cloud services to use them with and software to run on them, but these are each different subsidiaries. Then Foo Electronics files for bankruptcy while its shareholders get to keep all the profits it made from selling the other services instead of making the victims whole. The solution should be that limited liability is for natural persons, not corporations. If a corporation screws up you can go after the parent. Which makes sense, because the original rationale for limited liability doesn't apply there. We don't expect a business to be a generic investment fund -- if they're buying something it's because it complements their existing products and services, and they understand its operations. If they were just buying it as an independent investment then they could just as well return the money to shareholders to invest in that themselves. And if that also makes it less advantageous for corporations to consolidate into huge conglomerates, good.
- esteth 3y ago
  This is how it works, at least in this case. J&J is liable for the full liabilities of the new child company. The child exists to make sure a pool of at least its current assets exists to split between all claimants. If they’re found to be liable for more than that, then J&J will be liable for it and, if they can’t service that liability, they will have to declare bankruptancy.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > J&J is liable for the full liabilities of the new child company. Isn't this still J&J the consumer products division rather than J&J the parent company?
- 3y ago
wiz21c 3y ago
This is assuming the first 10 victims are going to act in a selfish way. That's basically assuming victims behave like companies (which must be selfish because their management has to protect them). That's despicable.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Humans optimize for their own self interest, this is basic economic theory. It’s not despicable it’s human nature.
  - wiz21c 3y ago
    please don't mix up human nature and economic theory. That's not the same.
    - zenapollo 3y ago
      It’s not as different as you might think. There has been a movement of anthropologists to call homo sapien alternatively homo economicus. Our ability to accumulate and share resources, which allowed us to build and trade, has deep roots in evolutionary psychology and sociology, and as these anthropologists argue, is perhaps the thing that most poignantly makes us uniquely human.
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      In this case they are
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > That's despicable. What's despicable? That people would operate in their own self-interest, without regard to potential harm that is not in any way their fault coming to people they've never met? Or the "assumption" that people would behave that way? If acknowledging how people normally behave, especially when there's no moral obligation for them to behave otherwise, seems despicable, a lot of reality will become unacknowledgeable. Why would a claimant intentionally take a lower settlement to keep funds available for later claimants? They have as much obligation to do so as you do to give up a portion of your paycheck to make sure claimants against J&J are paid out. Why would being the victim of crime specially obligate someone? Isn't that just a second victimization?

nl 3y ago

Yes, agreed.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bagacrap 3y ago

How is the business getting off easy in this scenario. It's dissolving. What else can we do to it?

freetanga 3y ago
Send execs and board who looked the other way or were negligent to jail? Impede them from similar roles for life? It is a reality in some licensed industries (eg banking)in Europe
- bigfudge 3y ago
  Not really. Very few people ever go to prison or a censured in this way.
notimetorelax 3y ago
The business limited its exposure through the spinoff. J&J as an entity may need to seize to exist to pay back for the damages.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Minor tip: “cease to exist” is the phrase you almost surely intended.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    True but given the context of J&J's SLAPP suit the verbatim has potential.
c0nducktr 3y ago
What? J&J isn't dissolving.
FireBeyond 3y ago
J&J isn't dissolving. It's still throwing off a billion dollars a month in shareholder dividends, freed from the shackles of any liability.
- hkt 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - eropple 3y ago
      "Hmm, you raise systemic concerns yet you use the system because you live in a society enmeshed in it" is not a winning argument.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Well, they could always commit their time and a large portion of their resources to a non profit. I bet you dollars to donuts that they work in tech and not for a non profit.
        eropple 3y ago
        "Well they could do things to harm themselves [because we treat non-profit employees like they implicitly have a wealthy spouse or should live in a shoebox]" is also not helping the argument very much. One does not need to be a Stylite to have an opinion on society; comparing the actions of individuals, without significant power or influence, with corporate-fiction persons that come equipped with lobbying arms and sufficiently dispersed decision-making power that nasty shit comes out of them regularly, is not and never persuasive.
        scarface_74 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

The unfairness isn't in what happens after they do something wrong, it's in how they structure their operations to begin with. The point of limited liability is so that grandpa can invest in an index fund even if he doesn't understand the inner workings of consumer products manufacturing without having to worry that one of the 500 companies in the index will hire a bad manager and have it wipe out not just that investment but his entire retirement account and his house and every other asset. The problem comes when corporations use the same mechanism to isolate their subsidiaries. Foo Corp is making phones that burn down your house and providing financing to buy them with and cloud services to use them with and software to run on them, but these are each different subsidiaries. Then Foo Electronics files for bankruptcy while its shareholders get to keep all the profits it made from selling the other services instead of making the victims whole. The solution should be that limited liability is for natural persons, not corporations. If a corporation screws up you can go after the parent. Which makes sense, because the original rationale for limited liability doesn't apply there. We don't expect a business to be a generic investment fund -- if they're buying something it's because it complements their existing products and services, and they understand its operations. If they were just buying it as an independent investment then they could just as well return the money to shareholders to invest in that themselves. And if that also makes it less advantageous for corporations to consolidate into huge conglomerates, good.

esteth 3y ago
This is how it works, at least in this case. J&J is liable for the full liabilities of the new child company. The child exists to make sure a pool of at least its current assets exists to split between all claimants. If they’re found to be liable for more than that, then J&J will be liable for it and, if they can’t service that liability, they will have to declare bankruptancy.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > J&J is liable for the full liabilities of the new child company. Isn't this still J&J the consumer products division rather than J&J the parent company?
3y ago

wiz21c 3y ago

This is assuming the first 10 victims are going to act in a selfish way. That's basically assuming victims behave like companies (which must be selfish because their management has to protect them). That's despicable.

edgyquant 3y ago
Humans optimize for their own self interest, this is basic economic theory. It’s not despicable it’s human nature.
- wiz21c 3y ago
  please don't mix up human nature and economic theory. That's not the same.
  - zenapollo 3y ago
    It’s not as different as you might think. There has been a movement of anthropologists to call homo sapien alternatively homo economicus. Our ability to accumulate and share resources, which allowed us to build and trade, has deep roots in evolutionary psychology and sociology, and as these anthropologists argue, is perhaps the thing that most poignantly makes us uniquely human.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    In this case they are
pessimizer 3y ago
> That's despicable. What's despicable? That people would operate in their own self-interest, without regard to potential harm that is not in any way their fault coming to people they've never met? Or the "assumption" that people would behave that way? If acknowledging how people normally behave, especially when there's no moral obligation for them to behave otherwise, seems despicable, a lot of reality will become unacknowledgeable. Why would a claimant intentionally take a lower settlement to keep funds available for later claimants? They have as much obligation to do so as you do to give up a portion of your paycheck to make sure claimants against J&J are paid out. Why would being the victim of crime specially obligate someone? Isn't that just a second victimization?