Eh, to me, he lost credit when he patronizes us about the Texas Two Step bankruptcy process.

I don't even care if he thinks it's a "valid" approach to take.

I do care that he, and the law firm that basically handles every one so far, condescends to tell us that "really, this is in the best interests of the plaintiffs suing these companies", and that it "makes their lives easier, and is fairer to them", and why can't we just understand that and believe them?

1. Why are these defendants so willing to bend over backwards to "assist the plaintiffs and make their lawsuits go more easily", when the potential downside to them is liability judgments in the tens of billions? Oh, because they'll never actually pay that. They'll "pledge" to fund their little spin off to the full value of liabilities, but will generally throw a couple of hundred million in, shut up shop and say "So sad, too bad", as happened in effectively each of the largest Texas Two Step bankruptcies.

Don't treat your readership like they're idiots, Matt. We know that these companies are not "choosing" to make it easier for them to be sued into oblivion for decades of lies and injuries - we're not naive. They're choosing to do it because they've already donned their parachute and slashed the lines on everyone else's.