[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.