> If they don't, then there is the author's big problem I don't think that is a valid simplification. He is allowed to disagree with the lawsuit but also point

> If they don't, then there is the author's big problem I don't think that is a valid simplification. He is allowed to disagree with the lawsuit but also point out the damage it caused. If you want to call it a strawman that is fine, but it isn't otherwise a flawed argument. > It results in companies not paying out the full damages due What other option is there? Unless weird things happened the entirety of the capital invested in the company was consumed. In theory we could build a way to say "you are liable for your investment plus X%" but how do you measure X%? And without some kind of limit the current capital investment strategy becomes difficult to maintain.