3 ms·

Why should it be illegal? It’s actually beneficial to the people harmed. What’s the alternative? Hundreds of lawsuits, each individually going to court, no d

by refurb 4y ago

Why should it be illegal? It’s actually beneficial to the people harmed. What’s the alternative? Hundreds of lawsuits, each individually going to court, no defined chances of restitution, dragging out for decades with eventually the source of funds dismantled. Instead, the complaints are resolved from a defined source of funds, with the money making assets separated out so that an going concern isn’t destroyed. And that doesn’t even go into the spurious nature of the asbestos complaints themselves.

BoiledCabbage 4y ago
It is legally ruled that based on reckless behavior people are owed money. So a corporation takes all of it's money and money making assets and hides it, and then takes a worthless thing be held responsible and to you "this is beneficial to the people harmed"? > with the money making assets separated out so that an going concern isn’t destroyed. If this isn't an incredibly deceptive sentence. Essentially we should pay them as long as it doesn't inconvenience us. If it would, we should be shielded from it. Could you explain how that is good? Do you see that as someone or something being accountable or it's actions? Or dodging accountability?
- rcxdude 4y ago
  The top comment does explain that because of this agreement between goodco and badco, goodco isn't actually shielded from the liability, because it still has to reimburse for the liabilities now owned by badco. If that's actually honored it doesn't seem like a bad thing at least (now it might be enabling more legal skulduggery later down the road, so it's reasonable to be suspicious, but the actions so far don't seem as nefarious as the plain texas-two-step where the two wind up completely split).
- zajio1am 4y ago
  > It is legally ruled that based on reckless behavior people are owed money. It is not necessary based on reckless behavior. Businesses often have strict liability, which means they are liable for damages even if they do everything right. It is a practical solution that simplifies legal cases (as proving regular liability would be harder) and also works as implicit insurance provided to customers. But it is fundamentally unjust and may be contraproductive in cases where it would destroy proper business or where legal costs markedly overwhelm compensation to damaged parties.
maxerickson 4y ago
Won't they likely pursue a bankruptcy settlement that is less than the current "$60 billion or everything"? This ruling is apparently saying that the funds are well enough defined that there's no current need for bankruptcy relief, so "instead" probably doesn't apply.
guiriduro 4y ago
“The complaints are resolved from a defined source of funds, with the money making assets separated out so that an going concern isn’t destroyed.” It’s here I have a problem. Who gets to decide what a defined source of funds is, what arbitrary limitations there should be, and why wouldn’t a going concern be able to continue? To the first point, it certainly shouldn’t be the defendant co., and it certainly shouldn’t find any refuge in bankruptcy that isn’t simultaneously the whole value of the enterprise with any fake splitting veil pierced back to the original pre-split Entity and liability carried by all. Secondly, there is no threat to a going concern, only the ownership of it - the plaintiffs probably want to be paid, even if the company’s own assets and its insurance are exhausted, by receiving equity in the going concern.

by refurb 4y ago

BoiledCabbage 4y ago

It is legally ruled that based on reckless behavior people are owed money. So a corporation takes all of it's money and money making assets and hides it, and then takes a worthless thing be held responsible and to you "this is beneficial to the people harmed"? > with the money making assets separated out so that an going concern isn’t destroyed. If this isn't an incredibly deceptive sentence. Essentially we should pay them as long as it doesn't inconvenience us. If it would, we should be shielded from it. Could you explain how that is good? Do you see that as someone or something being accountable or it's actions? Or dodging accountability?

rcxdude 4y ago
The top comment does explain that because of this agreement between goodco and badco, goodco isn't actually shielded from the liability, because it still has to reimburse for the liabilities now owned by badco. If that's actually honored it doesn't seem like a bad thing at least (now it might be enabling more legal skulduggery later down the road, so it's reasonable to be suspicious, but the actions so far don't seem as nefarious as the plain texas-two-step where the two wind up completely split).
zajio1am 4y ago
> It is legally ruled that based on reckless behavior people are owed money. It is not necessary based on reckless behavior. Businesses often have strict liability, which means they are liable for damages even if they do everything right. It is a practical solution that simplifies legal cases (as proving regular liability would be harder) and also works as implicit insurance provided to customers. But it is fundamentally unjust and may be contraproductive in cases where it would destroy proper business or where legal costs markedly overwhelm compensation to damaged parties.

maxerickson 4y ago

Won't they likely pursue a bankruptcy settlement that is less than the current "$60 billion or everything"? This ruling is apparently saying that the funds are well enough defined that there's no current need for bankruptcy relief, so "instead" probably doesn't apply.

guiriduro 4y ago

“The complaints are resolved from a defined source of funds, with the money making assets separated out so that an going concern isn’t destroyed.” It’s here I have a problem. Who gets to decide what a defined source of funds is, what arbitrary limitations there should be, and why wouldn’t a going concern be able to continue? To the first point, it certainly shouldn’t be the defendant co., and it certainly shouldn’t find any refuge in bankruptcy that isn’t simultaneously the whole value of the enterprise with any fake splitting veil pierced back to the original pre-split Entity and liability carried by all. Secondly, there is no threat to a going concern, only the ownership of it - the plaintiffs probably want to be paid, even if the company’s own assets and its insurance are exhausted, by receiving equity in the going concern.