4 ms·

Sounds like it's time for GreenPeace USA to follow the chemical industries example - do a corporate reorg, put all the liabilities in specific subsidiary and th

Sounds like it's time for GreenPeace USA to follow the chemical industries example - do a corporate reorg, put all the liabilities in specific subsidiary and then declare bankrupacy for that subsidiary.

jonas21 8mo ago
I assume that is the point of having a Greenpeace USA -- to shield Greenpeace International and other Greenpeace organizations from liability. And it seems to have mostly worked.
- DrScientist 8mo ago
  Looking at the history ( back in the 1970s )- it appears to be in part the reverse - when Greenpeace USA was created, the original greenpeace, based in Vancouver, had a quarter of a million debt - and there was a bit of a fight over it. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/12/11/TEXT-OMITTED-FROM-SOURCE-The-list-goes-on-A/8162376894800/ https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/12/11/TEXT-OMITTED-FROM-SO...
rayiner 8mo ago
That’s specifically illegal under bankruptcy law. It’s called fraudulent transfer.
- DrScientist 8mo ago
  Yet large companies appear to get away with it all the time - for example the so called Texas two step. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy In my view the best way to get this sort of stuff banned is to start using it yourself.
  - reenorap 8mo ago
    J&J tried it but was ultimately rejected last year.
    - triceratops 8mo ago
      Somewhat different circumstances. Summarizing Matt Levine's various columns on the issue from memory: 1. J&J lost a lawsuit about talc and the winner was awarded $Xb (or maybe $XXXm, my memory is fuzzy) in damages. 2. J&J transferred $XXb to a new company. 3. It let the new company take on current and future liabilities for judgements on the talc issue. 4. J&J then had the new company declare bankruptcy. The bankruptcy process is designed to pay out money fairly to all creditors. The new company's only creditors were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit J&J lost + any future claimants. So this wasn't necessarily nefarious. 5. A judge rejected the bankruptcy because J&J had funded the company with $XXb and that was in excess of its current liabilities. As Levine put it, the company wasn't "bankrupt enough" yet. I didn't keep up with the story after that so maybe I missed something.
      - reenorap 8mo ago
        I'm not sure what you mean. I think we are saying the same thing. The strategy to use Texas Two Step failed in 2025 and J&J gave up, and now they are going back to the regular way of resolving the litigation.
        triceratops 8mo ago
        The thread we're in started with the discussion of fraudulent transfers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47220263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47220263 You said the Texas Two Step can't be used for fraudulent transfers (or at least, that's how I interpreted) and offered J&J's case as an example. My reply to that is J&J's Texas Two Step failed for a different reason, unrelated to fraudulent transfers.
        reenorap 8mo ago
        No. My OP said that Texas Two step was used all the time. I said J&J tried to use Texas Two Step and it ultimately failed. And yes it did fail mostly because it was not being used in good faith.
  - FireBeyond 8mo ago
    Yup. It's "weird" that all of these companies claim that "swear to god, we fully intend to honor our obligations", then all of them use this one law firm who specializes in doing exactly the opposite and "oops, look what happened, we have no more legal obligation, that belongs now to this other entity that we said we'd fund but ... somehow ... didn't. Or certainly not anywhere near where we said we would." But there are definitely apologists and deniers of it, even right here on HN. Or "you don't know that's what's going to happen, we owe it to them to wait and see", even as you watch the exact same law firm guide another company through the exact same process in the exact same way, but somehow, maybe, this time, it'll have a different outcome.
- toomuchtodo 8mo ago
  It’s only illegal if they don’t get away with it. Most get away with it in corporate America. If bad actors are going to push the bounds of the legal framework, good actors should as well when the rules don’t matter. Rule of “Fuck you make me.” To improve odds of success, one could operate from a position of being judgement proof, organizing corporate and legal entities accordingly from a charging perspective. Laws are not objective, it’s all interpretative dance. Know how to dance for the performance you choose to participate in.
gamblor956 8mo ago
The proper way to do it would be to let Greenpeace USA go insolvent and then immediately form GreenPeace America as a new entity unhindered by the liabilities of the old one. This tactic has been used by our current President.

jonas21 8mo ago

I assume that is the point of having a Greenpeace USA -- to shield Greenpeace International and other Greenpeace organizations from liability. And it seems to have mostly worked.

DrScientist 8mo ago
Looking at the history ( back in the 1970s )- it appears to be in part the reverse - when Greenpeace USA was created, the original greenpeace, based in Vancouver, had a quarter of a million debt - and there was a bit of a fight over it. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/12/11/TEXT-OMITTED-FROM-SOURCE-The-list-goes-on-A/8162376894800/ https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/12/11/TEXT-OMITTED-FROM-SO...

rayiner 8mo ago

That’s specifically illegal under bankruptcy law. It’s called fraudulent transfer.

DrScientist 8mo ago
Yet large companies appear to get away with it all the time - for example the so called Texas two step. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy In my view the best way to get this sort of stuff banned is to start using it yourself.
- reenorap 8mo ago
  J&J tried it but was ultimately rejected last year.
  - triceratops 8mo ago
    Somewhat different circumstances. Summarizing Matt Levine's various columns on the issue from memory: 1. J&J lost a lawsuit about talc and the winner was awarded $Xb (or maybe $XXXm, my memory is fuzzy) in damages. 2. J&J transferred $XXb to a new company. 3. It let the new company take on current and future liabilities for judgements on the talc issue. 4. J&J then had the new company declare bankruptcy. The bankruptcy process is designed to pay out money fairly to all creditors. The new company's only creditors were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit J&J lost + any future claimants. So this wasn't necessarily nefarious. 5. A judge rejected the bankruptcy because J&J had funded the company with $XXb and that was in excess of its current liabilities. As Levine put it, the company wasn't "bankrupt enough" yet. I didn't keep up with the story after that so maybe I missed something.
    - reenorap 8mo ago
      I'm not sure what you mean. I think we are saying the same thing. The strategy to use Texas Two Step failed in 2025 and J&J gave up, and now they are going back to the regular way of resolving the litigation.
      - triceratops 8mo ago
        The thread we're in started with the discussion of fraudulent transfers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47220263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47220263 You said the Texas Two Step can't be used for fraudulent transfers (or at least, that's how I interpreted) and offered J&J's case as an example. My reply to that is J&J's Texas Two Step failed for a different reason, unrelated to fraudulent transfers.
        reenorap 8mo ago
        No. My OP said that Texas Two step was used all the time. I said J&J tried to use Texas Two Step and it ultimately failed. And yes it did fail mostly because it was not being used in good faith.
- FireBeyond 8mo ago
  Yup. It's "weird" that all of these companies claim that "swear to god, we fully intend to honor our obligations", then all of them use this one law firm who specializes in doing exactly the opposite and "oops, look what happened, we have no more legal obligation, that belongs now to this other entity that we said we'd fund but ... somehow ... didn't. Or certainly not anywhere near where we said we would." But there are definitely apologists and deniers of it, even right here on HN. Or "you don't know that's what's going to happen, we owe it to them to wait and see", even as you watch the exact same law firm guide another company through the exact same process in the exact same way, but somehow, maybe, this time, it'll have a different outcome.
toomuchtodo 8mo ago
It’s only illegal if they don’t get away with it. Most get away with it in corporate America. If bad actors are going to push the bounds of the legal framework, good actors should as well when the rules don’t matter. Rule of “Fuck you make me.” To improve odds of success, one could operate from a position of being judgement proof, organizing corporate and legal entities accordingly from a charging perspective. Laws are not objective, it’s all interpretative dance. Know how to dance for the performance you choose to participate in.

gamblor956 8mo ago

The proper way to do it would be to let Greenpeace USA go insolvent and then immediately form GreenPeace America as a new entity unhindered by the liabilities of the old one. This tactic has been used by our current President.