Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

L_Cranston_Shadow OP t1_j6ipda4 wrote

Full text:

>A federal appeals court rejected Johnson & Johnson‘s plan to use a legal strategy to push about 38,000 talc lawsuits into bankruptcy court, hampering the controversial tactic the company and a handful of other profitable businesses have used to move mass personal-injury cases to chapter 11.
 
>The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday dismissed the chapter 11 case of J&J subsidiary LTL Management LLC, which the consumer-health-goods giant created in 2021 to move to bankruptcy court the mass lawsuits alleging its talc-based baby powder products caused cancer.
 
>The unanimous ruling was a rebuke to an emerging corporate restructuring strategy in which companies facing mass tort litigation invoke a Texas law to create a new subsidiary with minimal business operations and make it responsible for tort liabilities before putting that subsidiary in bankruptcy.
 
>A J&J representative didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The company has denied that its talc products are unsafe and said resolving the tort claims in a chapter 11 plan was more efficient and fair for injury claimants than litigating or settling each claim one by one.

438

Frozty23 t1_j6j2eyb wrote

> fair

Appeals Court: You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.

283

JcbAzPx t1_j6khrvo wrote

To them, it means they don't pay.

56

tonycomputerguy t1_j6krlc0 wrote

Fair? Fare is what you pay to ride the bus... that's the only fare I know.

11

Chippopotanuse t1_j6j6aao wrote

Good old Texas…always looking to fuck the common man who was harmed by huge companies.

Why doesn’t Texas try to put a cap on how much harmful cancer-causing crap a company can put in its products? (instead of capping how much you can sue them for when they do?)

189

L_Cranston_Shadow OP t1_j6j72nf wrote

Usually I would say we have nothing on Delaware, when it comes to keeping companies from being held responsible, but thanks to the oil, gas, and chemical companies that are the lifeblood of Galveston and the bay, there is no accountability anymore. Every few years one of the refineries catches fire and/or explodes, and still nothing is done. It also doesn't help that our legislature only meets every two years and that the victims are poor and predominantly African American.

75

pmiller61 t1_j6l1kpp wrote

The population affected is all that matters

3

Showerthawts t1_j6jic7r wrote

>The unanimous ruling was a rebuke to an emerging corporate restructuring strategy in which companies facing mass tort litigation invoke a Texas law to create a new subsidiary with minimal business operations and make it responsible for tort liabilities before putting that subsidiary in bankruptcy.

WOW that is really shitty.

131

TywinDeVillena t1_j6ky730 wrote

How in the fuck is that even legal?

31

KallistiTMP t1_j6li12p wrote

The law exists to protect capitalists' financial interests, not the interests of the people. Everything else is propaganda. Even the laws that people think of as being there to protect citizens like the laws against assault, theft, murder, hard drugs, etc, are really just clever ways of extracting the maximum amount of profit and slave labor from whichever group of people society feels least sympathetic towards.

18

Stibley_Kleeblunch t1_j6l7xbw wrote

Well, it's one step closer to not being legal now, it seems...

Loopholes don't get closed until they're discovered.

7

TywinDeVillena t1_j6lylbm wrote

Here in Spain that action would be a crime called alzamiento de bienes (literally "uplift of goods") which is more or less conceptually equivalent to asset stripping.

Alzamiento de bienes is defined as the intentional hiding of property or assets, or intentional mismanagement, in order to obstruct creditors from being paid.

11

Stibley_Kleeblunch t1_j6m0gpd wrote

It's good to see that some of us have our heads screwed on straight, at least.

5

TywinDeVillena t1_j6m67yr wrote

I was sure the *alzamiento de bienes* was illegal since time immemorial, and just checked the Siete Partidas, a massive legal code from the 13th century, where such a thing can be found in Partida V, title XV, law VII:

How if a debtor alienates his goods in damage of those to whom he owed something, may that alienation be revoked.

5

BroHanzo t1_j6k1d73 wrote

So they know what they did? They know how they did it? They know who was involved and what “company” it’s now under….

Fuck these stupid assholes. Collectively. I’m sure individually someone has a red flag they’re waving, but collectively? If the company is to survive, are you gonna be the one to press the big red button?

Because we all know, all of it. I live and work with J&J people. It’s wild what they did - but they got away with it! Signaling to other companies, that if you sell a harmful product, then you’re fine as long as you launder the lawsuits through your subsidiaries!

This should be illegal, and why it’s not speaks to how fucked up our system is and how frustrating it is to be an American citizen, Watch this happen, and think to myself “well… I guess they always win huh.”

21

mrdilldozer t1_j6kuwin wrote

The product likely isn't harmful. You don't need to worry too much about it. A ton of follow-up studies have been done on it. The evidence of it causing cancer isn't great. Don't feel bad for them though, they've likely used their money to dodge lawsuits that actually deserved to lose in the past. If you want to be a multi-billion dollar company you better be willing to deal with the risks of the business.

−9

damon459 t1_j6lanhc wrote

https://www.mountsinai.org/health-library/poison/talcum-powder-poisoning

1

mrdilldozer t1_j6lcp89 wrote

Uhh, you are aware of what the lawsuit was about right? It was about ovarian cancer. Did you read the article above? If this case were about breathing in small particles, the makers of Fun Dip would be fucked too. This case is about very specific medical claims. I don't feel sympathy for J&J, but I'm not going to pretend that a jury gets to have the final word on science. I can laugh at them for getting fucked over and read about the evidence at the same time. It's not a binary choice here.

4

damon459 t1_j6lerg2 wrote

I did you said there was no cancer risk, if it causes cancer in the lungs it’s not a huge leap to it’s carcinogenic and therefore causes cancer…

−2

mrdilldozer t1_j6lj40t wrote

> if it causes cancer in the lungs it’s not a huge leap to it’s carcinogenic and therefore causes cancer…

It's a massive leap to say that. There is a ton of evidence about small particles getting trapped in the lungs leading to cellular damage. That causes the cells in the lungs to mutate into cancer. Ovaries don't function the same way your lungs do. It's why not using sunscreen puts you at risk for skin cancer and not pancreatic cancer. Different cancers have different causes.

0

damon459 t1_j6lmg5h wrote

Yeah and asbestos in you talc will cause cancer, get a clue.

−1

mrdilldozer t1_j6ln9u2 wrote

A "wow, thanks for explaining basic things about cancer to me" would have been nice too. Take care, Dunning-Kruger.

2

ThickerSalmon14 t1_j6mikdd wrote

If understand this properly, 3M just recently got slapped trying to do this same thing with their military noise protection gear lawsuits.

3

ZealousidealClub4119 t1_j6ir9ck wrote

Goddamn wankers... and this is thanks to one state law dodge?

The mind boggles.

168

L_Cranston_Shadow OP t1_j6iv2l8 wrote

Yes, and they aren't the first to try it, by any means. The asbestos companies did it successfully. To my knowledge, they are the first ones to try it and have it be publicly slapped down though.

134

ZealousidealClub4119 t1_j6iwdel wrote

Yeah, we in Australia only had one huge asbestos co. In the '90s, James Hardie set up an underfunded compensation fund and re-incorporated in The Netherlands.

45

L_Cranston_Shadow OP t1_j6j668v wrote

Yeah, what is up with your mineral companies in general. It very much seems to harken back to the empire and the scramble for Africa wherein countries grabbed huge chunk of "empty" (as in empty of white Europeans) land, then handed out charters to businessmen to exploit huge parts and sectors of it. The most well known one is the Congo, but I think South Africa and Australia were essentially settled under similar systems (albeit with a bonded labor force in large parts of Australia).

22

ZealousidealClub4119 t1_j6j86ci wrote

Mining didn't come in until much, much later. Australia was built off the sheep's back, it's said, forgetting about the genocides and land theft as colonisers always do.

The scramble is ongoing, here and elsewhere, with Aussie mining companies fighting, in courts or with mercenaries, local people from West Australia to DRC to get their big holes dug.

12

L_Cranston_Shadow OP t1_j6lia8l wrote

If the world ever goes full Mad Max though, you can stock up on guns, ammo, food, and water, and Coober Pedy will make a great trading post.

4

ZuluPapa t1_j6kvw2b wrote

I wanna say DuPont did it as well when they split off Chemours for PFOS/PFOA related issues.

3

AudibleNod t1_j6iqxuc wrote

I'm not an expert on corporate shell company. But on the surface, this sounds a lot like the Sovereign Citizen 'federal personage' nonsense. Whereby they think they can shift the burdens and debt to this federal citizen and are liberated by being their own sovereign citizen. Either way. Good for the appeals court. I hope Alex Jones bankruptcy has the same fate.

102

L_Cranston_Shadow OP t1_j6isjvp wrote

The asbestos industry did this successfully, so I definitely think it is good that such tactics are getting higher amounts of scrutiny.

68

kolt54321 t1_j6k57od wrote

The weird part is that if you look at actual studies, talc being a link to cancer is very mixed. I am by no means a fan of J&J but it does look like fear-mongering away from talc - at least from a scientific standpoint.

−10

Frelock_ t1_j6kdm7k wrote

More like when the village chooses a goat, puts all their sins on the goat, and then sacrifices it to appease the gods.

2

sb_747 t1_j6jctbr wrote

> But on the surface, this sounds a lot like the Sovereign Citizen ‘federal personage’ nonsense. Whereby they think they can shift the burdens and debt to this federal citizen and are liberated by being their own sovereign citizen.

That’s so off base it’s hard to even describe you as wrong.

−4

Aazadan t1_j6jecx3 wrote

It’s similar in that they’re both bullshit legal maneuvers, but beyond that it’s definitely quite different.

13

tmoney144 t1_j6jzo5e wrote

They're not at all similar. It's like saying the excuse "the dog ate my homework" and the excuse "my homework was stolen by aliens who think it contains the secret code to unlocking the mystery of the ancient pyramids," are similar because they're both false. One excuse is at least plausible and the other is bat shit crazy nonsense that should get you put in an institution.

−1

Aazadan t1_j6k79sd wrote

I’m trying to figure out which of the two is the plausible one. That corporate fraud is in the customers interest or that sovereign citizens are maybe on to something.

Normally I would solve this via proof by contradiction but they’re both out there.

1

tmoney144 t1_j6k8uu5 wrote

If you honestly think "sovereign citizens are maybe on to something," I would encourage you to seek help before you hurt yourself or someone you care about.

−1

Aazadan t1_j6k93k0 wrote

Where did I say I thought that? I said they’re both crazy theories, to the point I’m not sure how you’re coming up with either being plausible.

1

tmoney144 t1_j6kbcdl wrote

Do you know much about bankruptcy law? What J&J are trying to do is only really shitty because they tried to pull it like 2 months before trial after wasting a bunch of time in discovery. If they had pulled this when they first started getting sued, it probably would have been fine (maybe, after lookinginto it, I feel like they should have to put the whole companyin BK if that'sthe route they want to take). I think a big thing people are missing is that bankruptcy doesn't mean they don't have to pay. They created a shell company, but creating that company came with a promise to pay the liability once it works its way through the courts. They don't just get to skate on the claims by filing for bankruptcy. Here's a better discussion if you're actually interested: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/10/20/the-texas-two-step-a-new-bankruptcy-strategy-to-avoid-corporate-liability

Again, the 2 situations are not at all the same. What J&J tried had a real basis in law. Sovereign Citizens are lunatics.

−1

PushinPickle t1_j6l7lqj wrote

Having come across a few sovereign citizens, I’d wager all if not most are mentally ill.

1

Aazadan t1_j6mnq84 wrote

Do I know much about bankruptcy law? Not really.

What I do know though, is companies use this strategy, as mentioned before, to escape liability and pay less. That means the victims of their fraud aren't properly compensated. Meaning, that tactic is a system designed to say corporate fraud needs to be protected.

There is no other reason to split off an entity to pay for it other than to limit assets/liability.

0

washington_jefferson t1_j6jkl78 wrote

The whole Sovereign Citizen thing is totally nuts. People get crazy traffic violations, and then proclaim they were “not driving” but merely “traveling” and they have the right to free travel without government interference. I’m sorry, but unless you’re on an Indian reservation or a US military base, you have to follow traffic laws. You can make up your own rules. You are a subject of the United States. If you want to move into the remote jungles in Central or South America and try to do your own thing- good luck!

5

MeatsimPD t1_j6kedie wrote

I mean what can't individuals just invent a fictional new self and offload our debts into the now non-existent old self

1

JcbAzPx t1_j6kiehe wrote

Only corporate people are allowed to do that.

3

rankor572 t1_j6j5wtb wrote

Is this the "Texas Two-Step"? I'm versed enough in bankruptcy law to have heard the term, but not enough to know what it is.

62

tmoney144 t1_j6kc0r8 wrote

I found this to be helpful: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/10/20/the-texas-two-step-a-new-bankruptcy-strategy-to-avoid-corporate-liability

It even includes a quote from the Texas attorney who helped draft the statute being used here.

19

theUmo t1_j6mgydj wrote

The Wikipedia page is interesting.

The Texas Two-step has only been used 4 times. The first three times were to shed liability for asbestos damage, and J&J is the last one.

All four companies were represented by law firm Jones Day, who represented Trump in lawsuits seeking to stop votes from being counted in the 2020 election.

12

kyl3nol t1_j6jegrs wrote

I have heard that this is something that those "Get out of your timeshare" companies will do. They will create a shell company, sell your timeshare to the shell company, and then the shell company informs the resort that it is going bankrupt and wont be paying the fees anymore. Sue the shell company all you want but it's entire assets are some sheets of paper and staples holding them all together.

34

Xinlitik t1_j6joivz wrote

At least in that case the timeshare company can repossess the real estate and sell it again. Talc victims would just get straight screwed.

20

Mobely t1_j6ko8c9 wrote

I don’t think so. Those companies send a letter on your behalf saying they won’t pay . Then you get sent to collections.

3

code_archeologist t1_j6irvey wrote

They tried the Alex Jones Gambit, and lost.

...

I know he didn't invent doing this, but it is fun attributing this shitty tactic to such a shitty person.

29

petit_cochon t1_j6jfzh7 wrote

Even if none of its talc products contained asbestos, you still should not be inhaling particulates that fine of any kind. It's not safe and J&J certainly knew that, but continued marketing it to consumers, and maintains that it's a safe product.

Keep in mind that Johnson & Johnson is not just a company that makes baby shampoo and talcum powder. It is a major pharmaceutical company. It certainly understands and has access to research about, you know, lungs.

14

gucknbuck t1_j6kygqo wrote

There have always been warnings about not breathing in talc and their product information database lists it as hazardous to inhale. The cancers they are denying are cervical, not respiratory.

10

Raspberries-Are-Evil t1_j6n5d38 wrote

This is why we need new laws that hold executives PERSONALLY liable for cases like this where they knowingly caused harm. I understand sometimes companies didn't realize until it was too late-- thats a different story. But in this case, like many others, these fuckwads KNEW.

There should be no bankruptcy. Their personal assets should be liquidated immediately to pay judgements.

5

tomtomcowboy t1_j6ls3xh wrote

Thank glob. Shut those bozos down for real.

2

Roundaboutsix t1_j6jqisc wrote

Maybe Woody Johnson will be forced to sell the NY Jets to an owner not satisfied with 45 years of mediocrity...

1

Worldly_Ad1295 t1_j6iq72x wrote

Many lost jobs offer this Talc thing. Implant subsidiaries we're farmed out that provided well paying manufacturing jobs. Not many higher-ups got the ax. I know this ... I was at one of those companies that made skeletal implants. Those divisions have their own litigation issues. 😒

−12

schroedingersnewcat t1_j6jzvdj wrote

DePuy is a mess, but that has nothing to do with this other than they're both subs of J&J

6