I lost a lot of respect for Matt Levine with the pretzels he contorted himself into trying to defend the Texas Two Step as "really, truly, better for the plaintiffs", ignoring the two elephants in the room: if it was beneficial to the plaintiffs, why would the defendant go out of their way to do it? And how is it, by magical coincidence, that every firm that has done the Texas Two Step has managed to get out of paying up an average of over 90% (approaching 98% in a few cases) of their anticipated liabilities for decades of malfeasance and injury?

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.