> Also, the judge agreed with J&J's idea
No they didn't.
> How is it fair if the first victim gets 10M in damages, but the 100,000th victim does not, given each lawsuit proceeds differently? It's obviously not a race, and getting less/more damages based on the order you filed a lawsuit is surely not the best way
I didn't claim that was an optimal procedure. But as of yet there is no risk of J&J not being able to pay future claims. Indeed, J&J are still financially secure enough to be paying out dividends to their shareholders.
> The problematic part would have been had the money been capped. It's not, evidently.
No, the problematic part is J&J's attempt to use a sham bankruptcy to force litigants against it to to settle through a single judge rather than continuing with regular court cases.
As I have said elsewhere, if bankruptcy is actually required here, then J&J should declare it themselves. They won't because then they'd have to stop paying dividends.
There is plenty of room for tort reform to malye things fairer. Sham bankruptcies and a texas two step is not the appropriate method to bring fairness to victims of a financially solvent company.
Hint, when the victims oppose legal maneuver that is supposed to "make things more fair for them" and the perpetrator supports it, then the legal maneuver probably isn't doing what it claims to be doing.