Maybe the solution is to nationalize J&J.
"You can't bankrupt my company because someone might need to sue me later" is absurd reasoning.
We have a system of private ownership where the owners get to reap the rewards of others' labor, but when they do something wrong they pull the "but think of the employees" bullshit. No. Full ownership, full liability.
Rogue corporations are killing people at a scaled rivalled only by dictators…
I don’t really think that some hypothetical future lawsuit is a valid basis to avoid the consequences arrived at for the current one. If one can simply make a virtual entity that holds all of your liabilities and then set it on fire to avoid paying them, isn’t that just a modern play on the ancient tradition of the scapegoat?
Putting all your sins on someone or something else didn’t absolve you then and it should not be a legal way to get out of paying for your mistakes now.
You (and many other commenters) seem to be under the impression that the bankruptcy procedure was done for the purpose of "avoiding paying out the total amount assessed against it", when that was not at all the case.
My comment was only intended to be a response to the idea posited that some future hypothetical case should have any bearing on present reality. This belief in imaginary cases’ right to be considered in the legal system is turning up in interesting places lately, and I felt compelled to weigh in.
Apologies if I was off topic or confusing.
All I can suggest is to reread Levine’s article.
However, for companies like J&J that aren't actually going bankrupt, this process also allows them to protect their business and to pay less than they would normally. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just file for bankruptcy directly?
Obviously, yes.
> to pay less than they would normally.
Not necessarily.
You missed the part where they have a specialist court divide up the claims in a single go, rather than have ad-hoc juries hand out different awards to different claimants.
> aren't actually going bankrupt
You’re missing the part that this is kind of allowed in Texas courts. It’s not unrestricted - the court kicked back the first attempt.
“We can’t pay out for these deaths because then we will be out of money to pay out for the other deaths.”
This is only a compelling argument if J&J agrees to dissolve their entire company and work with the courts to distribute 100% of their wealth to aggrieved parties. Let’s see how much they cooperate with that.
Your follow up points don’t address my point at all.
"I am sorry, we cant imprison this murderer for life, what if he killed someone else and they need to sue him too, we can't i prison him for life twice!"
