How talc causes cancer?
Let's turn what you said around.
In a civil case, a jury can find a defendent guilty of something, but with inadequate evidence. This can lead to enormous fines, and potentially even make a large company go bankrupt. One imagines that if you're going to find somebody guilty, they actually have to be guilty. How does that look? Scientific studies. And scientific studies don't exist that show that people who consumed J*J talc got cancer at elevated rates with a significance level that meets any judicial standard.
So basically, what you are saying (which is true, and is exactly what bothers me) is that court cases can find a defendent guilty using a lack of scientific evidence, as long as the jury believes what was shown to them is a preponderance. That could just be erin brockovich walking around in court saying hexavalent chromium causes cancer (again, not enough data to conclude this).
here's the CA case. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF """ While none of this is disputed, whether asbestos was present in JBP during the six-decade exposure period is a matter of sharp dispute.
As further explained below, the trial court ruled that Dr. Compton’s and Dr. Fitzgerald’s declarations, to the extent they infer the presence of asbestos in milled, finished talcum powder from nothing more than positive tests for asbestos in raw talc ore used to manufacture it, are legally insufficient to create a triable issue of fact under applicable principles of causation
[1]https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/Abstract/2018/05000/...).
Sure, the baseline rate for this rare cancer is 1 in 10,000,000, and it's 1 in 10 in this town of 1000 people, but it's possible the plaintiff would have gotten it anyway.
That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive.
Really?
Market capitalization is, loosely, asset valuation plus X years of projected future earnings.
If JNJ was fined their market cap of $451B, it would take about 19.6 years of earnings to pay, assuming no declines due to reputational damage from the judgement. (2021 earnings $23B, BTW up almost 40% from 2020!).
So call it 20 years, with 100% of earnings dedicated to payment of the fine.
They could sell off assets (recent valuation $179B), but a) that would diminish their earning potential over the period, and b) even if they sold literally every owned asset (reducing the company to nothing), it would only reduce the fine restitution period from 20 years to 12 years. And since they'd be reduced to zero revenue and earnings, it would take infinitely many years to pay off the remainder. Of course the company will have ceased to exist at that point, satisfying GP's prediction of non-survival.
Or were you being hyperbolic?
> Really?
Yes. Even in this unlikely scenario, the company would easily continue on. The idea that this case could put them out of business is ridiculous and I stand by it.
> it would take about 19.6 years of earnings to pay,
You're thinking about it the wrong way...like most people who think that you can stick it to megacorporations. Think about how it pays out over the next 100 years? Because that's much more likely and efficient. While you might think it depends on the terms, it's going to be financed so there's not much to be done to liquidate them. Then think about how many decades before it can lobby (cough legislate) some additional financial tools?
> Market capitalization is, loosely, asset valuation plus X years of projected future earnings.
Irrelevant, at best. Large companies that should fold according to this kind of rough thinking don't fold on a consistent basis. Consider that you're oversimplified weasel calculation doesn't mean what you think it does.
Good luck with whatever.
The DOJ does not do 100 year payment plans. No idea where you got that idea. You think Deutsche Bank (or its moral equivalent) is going to line up for that loan? I don't see it.
In the "fined-full-market-cap" scenario (which I consider highly unlikely, and have zero opinion on desirability), I'd expect JNJ to declare bankruptcy (which would not discharge the fine) and be sold for parts.
Maybe I'm not thinking creatively enough, but I intend no weaseling, and there's no need to be a jerk about it.
Presumably if women put it on their privates every day, and it contains asbestos fibers, they will eventually have enough asbestos migrate internally to cause cancer, for example, in their ovaries - just like asbestos causes lung cancer when inhaled.
There have been disputed allegations that contamination could have occurred and resulted in cancer.
Asbestos is a carcinogen, and it often contaminates talcs. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/