3 ms·
> one pretty practical approach [to how to solve this problem] is bankruptcy. This, after all, is what bankruptcy is for: It is a system to make sure that credi
by littlestymaar 3y ago
> one pretty practical approach [to how to solve this problem] is bankruptcy. This, after all, is what bankruptcy is for: It is a system to make sure that creditors are all paid fairly out of the assets of a company, rather than paying some creditors a lot because they are early and others nothing because they are too late.
That's a legit argument in favor of bankruptcy of the entire company! There's no good justification for creating a shell company to control the damages on the main company (who did kill people).
- Panzer04 3y agoGiven J&J has yet to actually incur these damages, declaring bankruptcy seems a bit over the top.
- littlestymaar 3y agoWhen you factor in the fact that this company has (knowingly) killed multiple times more people than Osama Bin Laden, maybe it's not “over the top”…
- Panzer04 3y agoIn what way have they done that? I'm sure there.must be a massive lawsuit about it.
- littlestymaar 3y agoDidn't you even skim the article? There's a short summary at the beginning: > J&J is facing more than 38,000 lawsuits alleging that the company's talc products, including its Baby Powder, were contaminated by asbestos and caused cancers including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma
- Panzer04 3y agoRight, but these judgements have yet to be levied. The problem they are solving with this maneuver is ensuring a common/fair result for the people suing, without the "unreasonable" step of declaring bankruptcy on the company as a whole without actual obligations. As other comments have mentioned, Matt Levine has an excellent article describing the logic behind their actions.