Johnson & Johnson is trying to file for bankruptcy. They are taking it to the Supreme Court for protection against the litigation results of their products potentially causing cancer.
While it's not all the way there, the "depraved heart" rule does exist.
It allows the court to consider extreme indifference to the safety of others as being so depraved that it can be considered intent to kill - elevating wrongful death to 2nd degree homicide.
An example would be a drug or auto manufacturer executive choosing not to issue a safety recall for financial reasons. The idea is there's clear knowledge that great harm is likely from their inaction, and they're actively choosing to inflict that harm.
That's not what they did tho. They did this instead ... and lower courts said no.
J&J is among four major companies that have filed so-called Texas two-step bankruptcies to avoid potentially massive lawsuit exposure. The tactic involves creating a subsidiary to absorb the liabilities and to immediately file for Chapter 11.
I don't really trust this website, they seem to be pushing you towards their paid services rather than providing useful news.
In any case, my understanding is that this is pretty old news. Also, it's not J&J filing for bankruptcy, but a spin-off subsiduary that they created after the fact and have given all the IP rights to. They've lost every step of the way so far because what they're trying to do is so transparent, they're trying to shirk liability when at the time it was all theirs and theirs alone.
Also, it’s not J&J filing for bankruptcy, but a spin-off subsiduary that they created after the fact and have given all the IP rights to.
General Motors tried this same garbage tactic to get out of paying for their liability with mercury switches. General Motors declared bankruptcy, then created a NEW company called...General Motors. They transferred all the assets from old GM to new GM, and left all the liabilities with old GM. It took years, but a number of states sued and got a settlement.
I wish they hadn't settled on these matters. Sometimes things need to be brought to court - and when the state is involved there's less of an excuse not to.
IANAL but I believe there is significant legal precedent against this. Most notably the recent order preventing Purdue Pharma, and the Sackler family from that very protection.
As a Canadian I have never understood how your SCOTUS ruled that corps have the same rights as people. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.
I mean people survived millennia without corps, but corps wouldn't survive one day without people. Ergo we are top of the pecking order here ... or should be anyway.
My question is, when this shit passed, why did no one tell those fucks, "ok you're people too, which means the laws that pertain to a person are now applicable to whatever CEO and board members approved decisions that broke those laws." As it is right now, those fuckers get their cake and eat it too and it infuriates me to no end.