> 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 i

> 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.