[sigilis]

If I understand your statement correctly, the idea posited is that a company which has had a large ruling against it should be able to avoid paying out the total amount assessed against it because someone might also have been harmed that could theoretically bring suit?

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.

[teraflop]

Please read the Matt Levine article that was linked a couple of comments upthread.

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.

[sigilis]

I read that article, and currently consider myself inadequately informed to analyze the legal and financial implications of the particulars of the J&J issue. It seems rather complex and I’m not a lawyer who has reviewed the relevant filings and documents.

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.

[scott_w]

You didn’t understand my statement at all. You also didn’t understand the Matt Levine article because he doesn’t posit any of the things you claim either.

All I can suggest is to reread Levine’s article.