[caditinpiscinam]

As I understand it, the article describes how, for companies that are going bankrupt, handling victim payouts through bankruptcy is more equitable, since it considers the situation holistically, rather than on a first-come first-serve basis.

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?

[scott_w]

> this process also allows them to protect their business

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.

[caditinpiscinam]

> 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.

What gives you that impression?

> You’re missing the part that this is kind of allowed in Texas courts.

It would seem that what they did was not allowed, given that they lost their case.