4 ms·
As I understand it, using this scheme, the company is avoiding punishment for their wrongdoings when it could be larger than they're willing to pay. They bankru
by M95D 3y ago
As I understand it, using this scheme, the company is avoiding punishment for their wrongdoings when it could be larger than they're willing to pay. They bankrupt some minor part of their budget instead of bankrupting the entire company.
When a serial killer gets the electric chair, most people consider that a fair punishment. No? So tell me, if a judge wanted to apply capital punishment to a company, which is not even a living thing, it's just money and stamped papers. How could it do that, when the company can use this scheme to escape?
- Tyrek 3y agoYour understanding is wrong, which leads to a flawed analogy. > The point here, the bankruptcy court concluded, was not to keep J&J from having to pay talc claims; the entire value of J&J’s consumer business was still on the line for those claims.
- shkkmo 3y agoThe court did not conclude that, or anything about J&J's intentions. The court concluded that the subsidiary was not actually bankrupt and so couldn't justify J&J's attempt to consolidate all the lawsuits against it into a settlements from one bankruptcy judge. This attempted consolidation is pretty clearly an attempt to limit the judgement sizes that may come out of jury trials. Pretending otherwise is naive at best.