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

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 ]