J&J is using a bankruptcy maneuver to block lawsuits over baby powder claims | Hacker News Reader

J&J is using a bankruptcy maneuver to block lawsuits over baby powder claims

npr.org

48 pointsAndrewBissell22 comments

NPR is really all about the click bait.

First, no causal scientific relationship between asbestos and ovarian cancer has been demonstrated. A jury felt the mere presence of trace asbestos was proof enough so here we are.

Second, “LTL Management has been fully funded to amounts determined by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Additionally, the company established a $2 billion trust to cover additional expenses. J&J also noted that the subsidiary had been allocated royalty streams from undisclosed assets to provide another $250 million to contribute to potential liability payments.”

The issue of “jury-driven scientific consensus” is terrifying. A bunch of ignorant laypersons cannot be expected to sift through the mountains of lies presented in a courtroom setting and reach a sound conclusion about anything. The fact that our legal systems allow this kind of farce to occur with increasing regularity should undermine the public’s trust of everyone involved: the companies, lawyers, judges, and the government itself. As this case helps demonstrate, the law is systematically failing to deliver either truth or justice.

the adversarial environment of the courtroom provides a range of relevant information to juries, not just one ‘mountain of lies’. it’s just like when you get into an argument with someone and a bunch of people walk up and watch, then give their opinions based on the ‘facts’ you each present. a consensus forms on the most reasonable and plausible explanation given the information provided, and that becomes the accepted truth.

a jury is a small sample of the population that represents the ‘will of the people’ in this way. any one person can be wrong, but it would be difficult (but not impossible) for all of them to be wrong in the same way (outside of tampering). the one criticism that might be immediately valid is that juries are too small to adequately sample the will of the people, not that they’re too small to uncover truthful consensus.

I have been in enough courtrooms to know that both sides will lie if it helps make their case. Truth can end up being irrelevant in legal environments, as this very precedent shows. Collectively this presents a mountain of lies for the jury to sift through. Their opinions about what “facts” to believe should not be given any credence. Forming a scientific consensus should be left to science, not juries.

Would it make sense for juries to be "sticky"? In the sense that any subsequent legal action must be judged by the initial finders of fact?

Seems like that could forestall this type of tactic. Then again, the fact J&J can calve off legal liabilities like that seems extremely questionable.

as noted in my sibling comment, this isn't a problem in practice. the misguided commenter wants to assert 'science', without regard to the nuance of the situation. the legal system, while imperfect, doesn't generally look kindly to this kind of tenuous manuevering. the question is whether it has enough integrity (and ingenuity) to negate this sort of decrepit evasion.

you grossly overstate the amount of lying in courts and don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter that there are some shades of truth that seep into the testimony. it's the counterparty's and the judge's job to keep that to a reasonable minimum (as is the threat of disbarment). the world is infinite shades of grey and we're evolutionarily conditioned to cope with that reality, even those 'ignorant' jurors.

moreover, 'scientific consensus' is a sociopolitical, rather than a strictly rational and objective, process. at least try to understand the bone you're fishing to pick.

> LTL filed for bankruptcy last week in a federal court in Charlotte, N.C., a move designed to sharply limit efforts to recover damages for those who say they were harmed by J&J's baby powder.

> [J&J] remains one of the wealthiest corporations in the world, with more than $25 billion in cash reserves, and has not filed for bankruptcy.

Where's the clickbait? As stated, J&J calved off a company to redirect lawsuits away from itself, and that company has filed bankruptcy, which can be used to reduce its liability.

Your first point is quite irrelevant. The courts determined that the company owes people money. They can appeal the ruling if they think that they've got a case, but whether or not that happens, it doesn't detract from the accuracy of the headline. This is a loophole that huge companies are using to avoid legal liabilities, abusing bankruptcy while staying solvent.

DuPont did this kind of thing with Chemours, offloading a ton of lawsuit liability with the spin-off. Feels morally reprehensible even if technically legal

J&J split off a company and funded its liabilities.

"LTL Management has been fully funded to amounts determined by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Additionally, the company established a $2 billion trust to cover additional expenses."

It's clickbait because it's inferring that J&J is somehow not paying out damages as per the court order. That's not what's happening at all.

Okay, so if LTL has enough money to pay damages on current and future lawsuits, then why have they declared bankruptcy? Are you claiming that bankruptcy will not limit the ability of claimants to pursue and collect damages against LTL?

agree about npr, but not about the plausibility of asbestos causing ovarian cancer (‘no causal relationship’ is overstated here). the jury possibly reached an incorrect conclusion, but that’s on the legal team, not the jury, who considers only the information provided by each litigant.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen and the scientific consensus is that exposure can cause ovarian cancer.

yes, i disagreed that there was 'no causal relationship', but rather that there was significant, abundant evidence for the link (rather than 'scientific consensus', which is too politically loaded).

The causal link is well established.

Please provide sources. Asbestos is a known carcinogen when inhaled.

Please provide casual link data from peer reviewed journal that proves a link between the trace asbestos in talc and ovarian cancer.

It really just never ends huh? Corporations will do anything for profit, if that means harming their fellow humans, so be it. We got paid. Bottom line. That's our reality.

Why is this legal

Because the law was likely written for one reason and smart people are using it for another?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com