There is a valid point there, but one could argue it sets up unfair precedent for companies to act in bad faith if they can get off easy.
The point of limited liability is so that grandpa can invest in an index fund even if he doesn't understand the inner workings of consumer products manufacturing without having to worry that one of the 500 companies in the index will hire a bad manager and have it wipe out not just that investment but his entire retirement account and his house and every other asset.
The problem comes when corporations use the same mechanism to isolate their subsidiaries. Foo Corp is making phones that burn down your house and providing financing to buy them with and cloud services to use them with and software to run on them, but these are each different subsidiaries. Then Foo Electronics files for bankruptcy while its shareholders get to keep all the profits it made from selling the other services instead of making the victims whole.
The solution should be that limited liability is for natural persons, not corporations. If a corporation screws up you can go after the parent. Which makes sense, because the original rationale for limited liability doesn't apply there. We don't expect a business to be a generic investment fund -- if they're buying something it's because it complements their existing products and services, and they understand its operations. If they were just buying it as an independent investment then they could just as well return the money to shareholders to invest in that themselves.
And if that also makes it less advantageous for corporations to consolidate into huge conglomerates, good.
J&J is liable for the full liabilities of the new child company.
The child exists to make sure a pool of at least its current assets exists to split between all claimants. If they’re found to be liable for more than that, then J&J will be liable for it and, if they can’t service that liability, they will have to declare bankruptancy.
Isn't this still J&J the consumer products division rather than J&J the parent company?
Today’s grandpa might be living off the retirement income from his S&P fund investments which should (IMO) have the same level of limited liability to him as grandpa would have if he invested in a tiny slice of each of 500 different companies directly.
> We don't expect a business to be a generic investment fund
I do expect some businesses to be exactly that.
J&J is not "freed from the shackles of any liability", because it is still liable to its own subsidiary for the talc lawsuit claims, up to the full value of J&J itself (the parent company).
The decision not to cut dividends in the face of an earnings shock is a pretty common one and not generally a sign of an executive team attempting to enrich themselves. It's more of a sign to shareholders that the executive team has faith in the robustness of the business, which helps if the goal is to survive the present difficulties.
This is an extremely perverse incentive and shows how fundamentally broken some of these mechanics are.
"You injured me, and need to compensate me. But in order to do so I have to hope you continue to prosper, potentially injuring others along the way, so I get my compensation. I can choose between getting you shut down, but potentially not being compensated, or being compensated but knowing that you go on to be able to do this to others."
So then, what we are left with is a "bad bank" scheme that is devoid of a compelling legitimate justification, which you yourself do not offer. This naturally raises an inference that J+J hopes to cram down tort claims via the maneuver. Perhaps the cram-down is in administrative overhead associated with litigation. Maybe it's some kind of mismatch in claim acceptance or approval criteria. None of the materials explain, and while I adore Matt's writing the bottom line is it looks like a shell game and that's from someone with no "outrage" whatever involved.
It is a reality in some licensed industries (eg banking)in Europe
That's despicable.
What's despicable? That people would operate in their own self-interest, without regard to potential harm that is not in any way their fault coming to people they've never met? Or the "assumption" that people would behave that way?
If acknowledging how people normally behave, especially when there's no moral obligation for them to behave otherwise, seems despicable, a lot of reality will become unacknowledgeable.
Why would a claimant intentionally take a lower settlement to keep funds available for later claimants? They have as much obligation to do so as you do to give up a portion of your paycheck to make sure claimants against J&J are paid out. Why would being the victim of crime specially obligate someone? Isn't that just a second victimization?
We gave a name for that, it's calles psychopathy.
"According to a study conducted by forensic psychologist Nathan Brooks from Bond University, around one in five corporate bosses have clinically significant psychopathic traits. This proportion is similar to that among prisoners. Journalist Jon Ronson found that CEOs are four times more likely to be psychopaths than the average person."