> It was not avoiding liability at all. BS. So much stinking BS. This is even contradicted by your own quotes. >> they are not temperamentally lavish with cla

> It was not avoiding liability at all. BS. So much stinking BS. This is even contradicted by your own quotes. >> they are not temperamentally lavish with claims. Which is just admitting that bankrupty courts are likely to awards lower judgements than the juries and judges who would otherwise be awarding damages. That is pretty clearly reducing liability. If J&J eas really about to run out of money to pay out liabilities due lawsuits and we need to split what money they do have fairly, then J&J itself should declare bankruptcy. What they are doing instead is a sham legal maneuver designed to reduce judgements sizes and remove the legal rights of their victims. Trying to couch that as "protecting the victims" is a farce. I wonder how much Matt got paid...