|
|
|
|
|
|
by scott_w
1070 days ago
|
|
|
Bankrupting J&J would achieve none of the things you say you want. It would just mean the first to sue gets everything and everyone else gets nothing. The assets get stripped and sold off to the next company who can just continue to do the same thing. |
|
|
But the shareholders of J&J lose everything, making the ones of the next company think twice before doing the same… Whereas with the shell company bankruptcy, J&J shareholders losses are limited, and they still own and run the company that killed thousands of people.