3 ms·

Here is Matt Levine’s, of Bloomberg fame, famous article “Everything Everywhere is Securities Fraud.” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/eve

Here is Matt Levine’s, of Bloomberg fame, famous article “Everything Everywhere is Securities Fraud.” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt... Now cybersecurity included.

FireBeyond 3y ago
I lost a lot of respect for Matt Levine with the pretzels he contorted himself into trying to defend the Texas Two Step as "really, truly, better for the plaintiffs", ignoring the two elephants in the room: if it was beneficial to the plaintiffs, why would the defendant go out of their way to do it? And how is it, by magical coincidence, that every firm that has done the Texas Two Step has managed to get out of paying up an average of over 90% (approaching 98% in a few cases) of their anticipated liabilities for decades of malfeasance and injury? Matt and these firms would like us to believe that we should just trust them, "it will be so much more convenient and cheaper for you to sue us this way - we want to make sure we look after you... now. And we, really, truly, honest-to-god, promise that we'll actually fund the liability-stricken new entity we create^". ^ Offer not valid in the United States.
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  Or maybe as an expert, he understands the corporate bankruptcy process better than you and most of us here.
  - yborg 3y ago
    He was a lawyer in securities a long time ago. That doesn't automatically make him an expert in all areas of commercial law.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    I have no doubt he understands the process better than me. Absolutely. The outcomes speak for themselves though. Companies projecting $50B in liabilities for decades of injury to thousands of people funneling them into a shell company, "pledging" to fully fund that company, throwing maybe $100-300M into them, and then shuttering the company without fulfilling that pledge. That's the common outcome to each Texas Two Step story. But Matt and these companies and the firms (I mean firm, there's essentially one firm whose livelihood is this process) all patronizingly try to convince us that that outcome is somehow "better for plaintiffs and consumers", when the only one that seems to actually win is the corporation that successfully shed the boat anchor it put around its own neck.
- waiwai933 3y ago
  Do you have a link to Matt Levine's article? I've just skimmed his emails that have "Texas Two-Step" and don't see any defense thereof (mostly just explanations around J&J), but could well have missed it/before I started subscribing.

FireBeyond 3y ago

I lost a lot of respect for Matt Levine with the pretzels he contorted himself into trying to defend the Texas Two Step as "really, truly, better for the plaintiffs", ignoring the two elephants in the room: if it was beneficial to the plaintiffs, why would the defendant go out of their way to do it? And how is it, by magical coincidence, that every firm that has done the Texas Two Step has managed to get out of paying up an average of over 90% (approaching 98% in a few cases) of their anticipated liabilities for decades of malfeasance and injury? Matt and these firms would like us to believe that we should just trust them, "it will be so much more convenient and cheaper for you to sue us this way - we want to make sure we look after you... now. And we, really, truly, honest-to-god, promise that we'll actually fund the liability-stricken new entity we create^". ^ Offer not valid in the United States.

boeingUH60 3y ago
Or maybe as an expert, he understands the corporate bankruptcy process better than you and most of us here.
- yborg 3y ago
  He was a lawyer in securities a long time ago. That doesn't automatically make him an expert in all areas of commercial law.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  I have no doubt he understands the process better than me. Absolutely. The outcomes speak for themselves though. Companies projecting $50B in liabilities for decades of injury to thousands of people funneling them into a shell company, "pledging" to fully fund that company, throwing maybe $100-300M into them, and then shuttering the company without fulfilling that pledge. That's the common outcome to each Texas Two Step story. But Matt and these companies and the firms (I mean firm, there's essentially one firm whose livelihood is this process) all patronizingly try to convince us that that outcome is somehow "better for plaintiffs and consumers", when the only one that seems to actually win is the corporation that successfully shed the boat anchor it put around its own neck.
waiwai933 3y ago
Do you have a link to Matt Levine's article? I've just skimmed his emails that have "Texas Two-Step" and don't see any defense thereof (mostly just explanations around J&J), but could well have missed it/before I started subscribing.