[shkkmo]

> The bankruptcy process just allows the courts to manage all of the claims together under the authority of one judge, instead of having different courts in every state issue incompatible damages awards in a race to judgment

This "just" is sure doing a lot of work.

First off, if J&J is really on the hook for all the liabilities of the child company, then the child company is not bankrupt since it has plenty of money to pay unless J&J is also bankrupt. This makes it pretty clear that the bankruptcy is a sham legal maneuver.

Second, it is a bit rich that this legal maneuver is framed at "protecting claimants" when it blocks those claimants from pursuing cases that maximizes their damages. It seems pretty clear that J&J are not following this strategy to protect the victims an ensure fairness but to minimize their own costs and damages.

What this basically amounts to is subverting bankruptcy law to force claimants into something more akin to a class action without the consent of the claimants.

If it really is the case that total awarded damages exceed what J&J can pay, then J&J should itself file for bankruptcy.

[somenits]

>Second, it is a bit rich that this legal maneuver is framed at "protecting claimants" when it blocks those claimants from pursuing cases that maximizes their damages.

This is purposefully obtuse. If a few courts award 5 plaintiffs the entire pot of gold, then there's nothing left for all the other claimants. And of course it's in J&J's interest to consolidate the cases. It's also in the plaintiffs' interests, especially those who weren't first.