3 ms·
You know you've lost the argument when your only response to actual facts and analysis is "yeah but what does this name sound like".
by somenits 3y ago
You know you've lost the argument when your only response to actual facts and analysis is "yeah but what does this name sound like".
- skeaker 3y agoNo, GP makes a fair point. If it were true that all this does is benefit claimants and plaintiffs, the adversaries of the one taking the action, why would they do it?
- somenits 3y agoOf course it would benefit J&J too. You get to consolidate your cases in one court. You get to be in federal court, which is by conventional wisdom believed to be more defendant-friendly. You get to achieve legal certainty in a shorter period of time. It also benefits all the plaintiffs who weren't early to the party, since they are guaranteed a slice of the pie (if they win), instead of the first few successful plaintiffs eating the whole thing.
- FireBeyond 3y ago> It also benefits all the plaintiffs who weren't early to the party, since they are guaranteed a slice of the pie (if they win), instead of the first few successful plaintiffs eating the whole thing. The pie is much smaller though. Georgia Pacific was faced with 62,000+ claims. They went through this same process. Spun off their subsidiary. "Pledged" to fund it with an "initial" billion dollars, and that GP would fund all claims. Never happened. They actually only funded $175M. Less than $3,000 per claimant for asbestos related injuries. Less than $3,000 before legal fees. And there was nothing defendants could do, because there was no legal obligation that could be created to force GP to fully fund. "That entity is independent and is in bankruptcy. So sad, too bad."
- somenits 3y agoPlease see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36794762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36794762