Or maybe as an expert, he understands the corporate bankruptcy process better than you and most of us here.
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.