If you think he’s wrong, please explain why. I genuinely would love to hear a well-reasoned critique of his analysis.
It seems more fair to allow any and all claimants to sue J&J, or join together for a class action lawsuit. If the liabilities outstrip the company's total worth they can then go for bankruptcy of the entire J&J business and split assets proportionately across all liabilities.
This is not what they did.
To quote Levine's piece:
> the box where J&J put its talc claims — could draw at least $61.5 billion from J&J to pay off those claims. The point here, the bankruptcy court concluded, was not to keep J&J from having to pay talc claims; the entire value of J&J’s consumer business was still on the line for those claims.
For emphasis: the entire value of J&J’s consumer business was still on the line for those claims
Except that's not what they did. As the article explains, under the J&J agreement the "maximum liability" of the parent to the subsidiary was defined as the entire cash value of the parent.
It would different if the court themselves attempted to limit liabilities. If I could limit the cost of my liabilities, you could sure that I’d discount them to the detriment of those that owned the liabilities.
