Mining firm Rio Tinto sorry for destroying Aboriginal caves (2020)

Re:Mining firm Rio Tinto sorry for destroying Aboriginal cav... by gruez on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @03:52PM (#27988895)

Every time this brought up the person doing so doesn't seem to realize that some companies have lower margins than others (eg. walmart vs microsoft), so you end up those companies more.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mining firm Rio Tinto sorry for destroying Aboriginal cav... by tw04 on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @03:54PM (#27988924)

I understand margin quite well. The whole point of the penalty is to make it painful enough they don't do it again. You can hide profit, you can't hide revenue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mining firm Rio Tinto sorry for destroying Aboriginal cav... by gruez on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @04:04PM (#27989023)

>You can hide profit, you can't hide revenue.

You can't hide revenue, but you can hide assets. You might get your $100M judgement, but it's pointless when you can't collect it because the company you fined is a pass-through entity with no assets.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mining firm Rio Tinto sorry for destroying Aboriginal cav... by vkou on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @11:09PM (#27992396)

A pass-through entity with no assets should not be allowed to conduct any business where they might incur long-term liabilities.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mining firm Rio Tinto sorry for destroying Aboriginal cav... by jon_richards on Friday July 30, 2021 @12:24PM (#28009625)

I’ve thought about a system where a company has to purchase liability insurance when they dump assets.

So if a plant has a chemical leak, the company can’t sell every other plant, pay a huge dividend, and then declare bankruptcy to avoid paying damages. The plant would have to be insured for up to the total dividend payout. The insurance company would charge a huge fee based on what they think the plant will end up costing after a court battle, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]