[cool_dude85]

> this is a civil proceeding and the point of bankruptcy is to draw a line under liability.

This is a bankruptcy proceeding regarding the liability of Weinstein's company. What's that got to do with Harvey Weinstein's, the living person's, liability, other than the fact that you can convince a judge to waive it? Much less the people who served as the company's BoD?

[JumpCrisscross]

> What's that got to do with Harvey Weinstein's, the living person's, liability

Weinstein the person caused the company’s liability. The insurers paying out for the latter are also connected to the former. They won’t agree to a bankruptcy plan that leaves them on the hook for further litigation.

[cool_dude85]

>Weinstein the person caused the company’s liability

His actions on behalf of the company, and the actions of others also acting on behalf of the company. He is just one of the individuals whom one could reasonably expect to be held liable in a civil suit.

>They won’t agree to a bankruptcy plan that leaves them on the hook for further litigation.

They will if a plan that doesn't absolve these covered individuals of liability is not offered, or is not able to be offered. And if they don't agree to a plan, oh well.

Remember that if there's a policy choice between allowing this practice, which allows for a liability cap to be negotiated in bankruptcy court , or disallowing it, the insurers have every reason to rattle their sabers about refusing bankruptcy or going out of business, because the status quo benefits them greatly. So they might say they won't agree to any other plan, but that could be just talk until you refuse to offer them such a sweet deal.