Bankruptcy protection, ultimately, is meant to protect a debtor and ensure fair treatment of creditors, while preventing certain types of harassment from credit

Bankruptcy protection, ultimately, is meant to protect a debtor and ensure fair treatment of creditors, while preventing certain types of harassment from creditors. Using bankruptcy as a means to strengthen chances of an organization's survival seems entirely consistent with the purpose of the law, and at a minimum, is not a showing (in and of itself) of fraud. Especially so, if the NRA isn't misrepresenting it's financial obligations and status to the courts. >that will get the corporate veil pierced Intent and eventual result is not enough on its own to show this. If the letter of the law was followed in its actions, an organization's liability should be protected as provided by corporate law. Obviously, bankruptcy also isn't meant to allow jurisdictional avoidance. But the NY AG's actions are themselves a legally questionable means of pursuing a political motive, for which they are skirting the spirit/intent of the law. And they certainly fit the spirit/character of an overly aggressive creditor, if not the letter. Which results in a potentially interesting dilemma for the NY AG- claim interest in the case as some kind of a creditor, which might afford NRA relief from them, or claim sovereign interest as a state, which might preserve since of their legal claims, but sideline them until the federal bankruptcy proceedings are over (with NRA emergence from protection in Texas). From a practical/ethical perspective, if NY's pursuit/prosecution is just in NY, it should also be just in Texas. If NY can't pursue the same prosecution, (or the same equitable relief) once the NRA moves, is that not an implicit admission of misusing jurisdictional authority?