[akira2501]

Is a class action somehow impossible if they don't declare bankruptcy? Or they can't distribute money as easily as in a class action? The mechanics of this don't sound so absolutely necessary.

Further, if your company produces products that kill or injure people, then why should we show any interest in maintaining that companies existence with odd legal hacks like this? Shouldn't they be disbanded, their assets sold, and new businesses allowed to exist in that space?

What are we, in total, as a society, gaining by allowing this?

[nl]

> Is a class action somehow impossible if they don't declare bankruptcy? Or they can't distribute money as easily as in a class action?

The issue is that there might be multiple actions, and compensation might be used up byt the first one (eg, if the company was sent into bankruptcy by the first class action, then subsequent cases would be useless). This is a pretty reasonable argument IMHO.

> Further, if your company produces products that kill or injure people, then why should we show any interest in maintaining that companies existence with odd legal hacks like this?

This seems fairly debatable.

J&J produces a lot of things that aren't talc, and it isn't like they are a cigarette company that knew the health risks. The risks from talc weren't known are are still debated, and it is a thing that has been used for thousands of years without known issues.

Separately there's a good argument that keeping the company alive is better for those affected because it can fun ongoing liabilities.

[angus-prune]

Thats not actually the issue with talc.

The talc itself is not believed to be the carcinagen, but the talc is contaminated with asbestos. Interal documents show that J&J knew about the contamination since 1971. Asbestos was known to be carcinegic at this point and the first bans of asbestos use in construction began rolling out in 1972.

They knew and hid the health risks, just like a cigarette company.

[autoexec]

They should be behind bars. They're serial killers.

[mschuster91]

> Separately there's a good argument that keeping the company alive is better for those affected because it can fun ongoing liabilities.

There's a better solution: the government pays all the fines and then nationalizes the company until the profits have paid back everything owed plus reasonable interest. Then, it's sold off. The original owners get nothing.

That way, there's also an incentive for current shareholders to pressure their management to behave ethically - clearly, there's a massive lack of such in the current framework.

[dumpsterdiver]

> Further, if your company produces products that kill or injure people, then why should we show any interest in maintaining that companies existence with odd legal hacks like this?

> This seems fairly debatable.

To be fair, we might not have some of the drugs many of us are prescribed to us if we just cancelled every company that ever hurt anyone with experimental drugs.

[autoexec]

J&J wasn't accidentally hurting people with experimental drugs.

They had full knowledge that they were poisoning people, and they actively hid that from the people they were killing, because J&J wanted more of their victim's money before they died, and a continuous supply of new victims to take the place of the old ones.

[themitigating]

Your use of "cancelled" seems to be an attempt to imply their actions are similar to a comedian using the N word.

People died and they knew their product was dangerous. That's akin to murder.

[dumpsterdiver]

> Your use of "cancelled" seems to be an attempt to imply their actions are similar to a comedian using the N word.

No, those are your words. The discussion I was participating in was talking about medication, not race warfare.

My statement was also generalized, but you apparently applied it to a specific scenario (which I am unfamiliar with) that fits your narrative.

[ClumsyPilot]

> cancelled every company that ever hurt anyone with experimental drugs.

"This baby powder is an experimental drug and may have unknown and lethal side effects" - did it say this on the packaging?

If it did, fair play. Some people would be happy to try experimental and dangerous cure for cancer.

But somehow I have a suspicion that the potential market share for experimental and dangerous baby powder is about 0%.

[master-lincoln]

Maybe if we would have taken care malicious actors are removed we would now have more actors instead of a few giants who seem too big to fail

[kevinventullo]

Somehow I feel like if J&J declared bankruptcy due to the lawsuit, life would go on. They have plenty of competitors.

[ClumsyPilot]

> J&J produces a lot of things that aren't talc

And I donate to charity, but if I put a poison in coffee before selling it to you, I will be in prison, but JJ gets to limit liability

[jachee]

Preserved Shareholder Value, and another middle finger from the Invisible Hand.