It seems pretty rational (even if quite cynical) to me. The covering your ass liability for a similar repeat of a black swan event must be way higher than it wa

It seems pretty rational (even if quite cynical) to me. The covering your ass liability for a similar repeat of a black swan event must be way higher than it was the first time around. You can't claim surprise or lack of precedent for the second time, and it really does look like negligence to the circling lawyers if you didn't react to it. In risk management terms, the likelihood of a repeat might not have changed, but the consequence of a repeat sure has.