4 ms·

>In this case, filing for bankruptcy created fairness among victims, they did not have to be first or fifth to get the right damages, every victim was treated e

by shkkmo 3y ago

>In this case, filing for bankruptcy created fairness among victims, they did not have to be first or fifth to get the right damages, every victim was treated equal. It creates fairness among victims by removing their rights to seek higher damages via their own court cases. This "fairness" is only needed if the total amount of judgements exceeds what J&J can pay. In which case it is J&J which should be declaring bankruptcy, but that would block their ability to keep paying dividends to shareholders. > The only reason the court quashed it was because it wanted J&J to fight the individual or class action lawsuits Exactly. The judge saw through skeezy J&J attempt to use a sham bankruptcy to avoid the large payouts that can come from jury trials. Edit: Seriously, how can any person believe that J&J are doing this to make sure there is money to "fairly" pay all the victims while J&J is still paying some of the money that might be needed to pay victims as dividends to their shareholders. It is pretty darn extremely clear the J&J's primary goal is to reduce payouts and maximize shareholder value

ankit219 3y ago
> It creates fairness among victims by removing their rights to seek higher damages via their own court cases How is it fair if the first victim gets 10M in damages, but the 100,000th victim does not, given each lawsuit proceeds differently? It's obviously not a race, and getting less/more damages based on the order you filed a lawsuit is surely not the best way. (Damages via settlement or decided by jury). Even in the best case scenario where every victim gets a payout, they should get equal payout for similar damages. Also, the judge agreed with J&J's idea, but found the filing to be premature. That is even before they fought any lawsuit. Early is encouraged, premature is not. There is a distinction > We recognize the Code contemplates “the need for early access to bankruptcy relief to allow a debtor to rehabilitate its business before it is faced with a hopeless situation.” A “financially troubled” debtor facing mass tort liability, for example, may require bankruptcy to “enable a continuation of [its] business and to maintain access to the capital markets” even before it is insolvent. > Still, encouragement of early filing “does not open the door to premature filing.” This may be a fine line in some cases, but our bankruptcy system puts courts, vested with equitable powers, in the best position to draw it. The problematic part would have been had the money been capped. It's not, evidently. Then again, if you want to dissolve a company for one product, tell me what happens if tomorrow another product of theirs has some flaw, and now the victims cannot get anything for their damages?
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > Also, the judge agreed with J&J's idea No they didn't. > How is it fair if the first victim gets 10M in damages, but the 100,000th victim does not, given each lawsuit proceeds differently? It's obviously not a race, and getting less/more damages based on the order you filed a lawsuit is surely not the best way I didn't claim that was an optimal procedure. But as of yet there is no risk of J&J not being able to pay future claims. Indeed, J&J are still financially secure enough to be paying out dividends to their shareholders. > The problematic part would have been had the money been capped. It's not, evidently. No, the problematic part is J&J's attempt to use a sham bankruptcy to force litigants against it to to settle through a single judge rather than continuing with regular court cases. As I have said elsewhere, if bankruptcy is actually required here, then J&J should declare it themselves. They won't because then they'd have to stop paying dividends. There is plenty of room for tort reform to malye things fairer. Sham bankruptcies and a texas two step is not the appropriate method to bring fairness to victims of a financially solvent company. Hint, when the victims oppose legal maneuver that is supposed to "make things more fair for them" and the perpetrator supports it, then the legal maneuver probably isn't doing what it claims to be doing.
  - ankit219 3y ago
    > No they didn't I quoted you the judge's opinion where he states he recognizes "a need for early filing even before it's insolvent." To me, that is agreeing in principle and idea, just that here he called it too early/premature. You can choose to skip that again, or read the whole thing in context, it's available on the internet. If we are discussing one suboptimal process against another, it's a matter of opinion, especially when we have no concrete proof that J&J has been trying to limit liabilities. > sham bankruptcy to force litigants against it to to settle through a single judge It gets everyone same damages, does it faster, and does it more equitably. Moreover, there likely would be reserve for future victims where they would not have to find a lawyer, litigate a suit, etc. to get damages. Sham would be true if they skimped on damages, they claimed on the filing it's fully backed by parent company so they likely won't. I don't get the concept of nuking the entire company for one product. Why is dividend even an issue? You think the total cost of damages would be more than their yearly revenue? If not, whatever they do with rest of the money (after the worst case estimate should not be an issue. I think the motivation was to settle claims and pay damages quickly rather than through a longer drawn out trial. Thats not a bad motive in itself.

by shkkmo 3y ago

ankit219 3y ago

> It creates fairness among victims by removing their rights to seek higher damages via their own court cases How is it fair if the first victim gets 10M in damages, but the 100,000th victim does not, given each lawsuit proceeds differently? It's obviously not a race, and getting less/more damages based on the order you filed a lawsuit is surely not the best way. (Damages via settlement or decided by jury). Even in the best case scenario where every victim gets a payout, they should get equal payout for similar damages. Also, the judge agreed with J&J's idea, but found the filing to be premature. That is even before they fought any lawsuit. Early is encouraged, premature is not. There is a distinction > We recognize the Code contemplates “the need for early access to bankruptcy relief to allow a debtor to rehabilitate its business before it is faced with a hopeless situation.” A “financially troubled” debtor facing mass tort liability, for example, may require bankruptcy to “enable a continuation of [its] business and to maintain access to the capital markets” even before it is insolvent. > Still, encouragement of early filing “does not open the door to premature filing.” This may be a fine line in some cases, but our bankruptcy system puts courts, vested with equitable powers, in the best position to draw it. The problematic part would have been had the money been capped. It's not, evidently. Then again, if you want to dissolve a company for one product, tell me what happens if tomorrow another product of theirs has some flaw, and now the victims cannot get anything for their damages?

shkkmo 3y ago
> Also, the judge agreed with J&J's idea No they didn't. > How is it fair if the first victim gets 10M in damages, but the 100,000th victim does not, given each lawsuit proceeds differently? It's obviously not a race, and getting less/more damages based on the order you filed a lawsuit is surely not the best way I didn't claim that was an optimal procedure. But as of yet there is no risk of J&J not being able to pay future claims. Indeed, J&J are still financially secure enough to be paying out dividends to their shareholders. > The problematic part would have been had the money been capped. It's not, evidently. No, the problematic part is J&J's attempt to use a sham bankruptcy to force litigants against it to to settle through a single judge rather than continuing with regular court cases. As I have said elsewhere, if bankruptcy is actually required here, then J&J should declare it themselves. They won't because then they'd have to stop paying dividends. There is plenty of room for tort reform to malye things fairer. Sham bankruptcies and a texas two step is not the appropriate method to bring fairness to victims of a financially solvent company. Hint, when the victims oppose legal maneuver that is supposed to "make things more fair for them" and the perpetrator supports it, then the legal maneuver probably isn't doing what it claims to be doing.
- ankit219 3y ago
  > No they didn't I quoted you the judge's opinion where he states he recognizes "a need for early filing even before it's insolvent." To me, that is agreeing in principle and idea, just that here he called it too early/premature. You can choose to skip that again, or read the whole thing in context, it's available on the internet. If we are discussing one suboptimal process against another, it's a matter of opinion, especially when we have no concrete proof that J&J has been trying to limit liabilities. > sham bankruptcy to force litigants against it to to settle through a single judge It gets everyone same damages, does it faster, and does it more equitably. Moreover, there likely would be reserve for future victims where they would not have to find a lawyer, litigate a suit, etc. to get damages. Sham would be true if they skimped on damages, they claimed on the filing it's fully backed by parent company so they likely won't. I don't get the concept of nuking the entire company for one product. Why is dividend even an issue? You think the total cost of damages would be more than their yearly revenue? If not, whatever they do with rest of the money (after the worst case estimate should not be an issue. I think the motivation was to settle claims and pay damages quickly rather than through a longer drawn out trial. Thats not a bad motive in itself.