https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
Now cybersecurity included.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...
Now cybersecurity included.
Matt and these firms would like us to believe that we should just trust them, "it will be so much more convenient and cheaper for you to sue us this way - we want to make sure we look after you... now. And we, really, truly, honest-to-god, promise that we'll actually fund the liability-stricken new entity we create^".
^ Offer not valid in the United States.
The outcomes speak for themselves though. Companies projecting $50B in liabilities for decades of injury to thousands of people funneling them into a shell company, "pledging" to fully fund that company, throwing maybe $100-300M into them, and then shuttering the company without fulfilling that pledge. That's the common outcome to each Texas Two Step story.
But Matt and these companies and the firms (I mean firm, there's essentially one firm whose livelihood is this process) all patronizingly try to convince us that that outcome is somehow "better for plaintiffs and consumers", when the only one that seems to actually win is the corporation that successfully shed the boat anchor it put around its own neck.