3 ms·
Your 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 cla
by Tyrek 3y ago
Your 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.