I'm not sure what you mean. I think we are saying the same thing. The strategy to use Texas Two Step failed in 2025 and J&J gave up, and now they are going back to the regular way of resolving the litigation.

▲

triceratops 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The thread we're in started with the discussion of fraudulent transfers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47220263

You said the Texas Two Step can't be used for fraudulent transfers (or at least, that's how I interpreted) and offered J&J's case as an example. My reply to that is J&J's Texas Two Step failed for a different reason, unrelated to fraudulent transfers.

▲

reenorap 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

No.

My OP said that Texas Two step was used all the time. I said J&J tried to use Texas Two Step and it ultimately failed. And yes it did fail mostly because it was not being used in good faith.

	▲	triceratops 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> And yes it did fail mostly because it was not being used in good faith As of today, judgments against J&J total to less than $10b. J&J committed up to $61.5b to LTL, the company it spun off. Simple arithmetic shows us all current judgments will be satisfied. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47222778 Where is the bad faith today? I mean it's possible they've done some internal analysis and expect to be on the hook for more than that in the future. Or there's some other arcane legal issue I don't understand. And in that sense committing the $61.5b is a smart way of capping their losses while still looking like good guys today. There's no evidence of that right now though. To re-iterate, the bankruptcy was rejected because of how it was structured. Not because there was an attempt to dodge liability. To me that's a more damning indictment of the legal system because it implies liability dodging might have been worked of it were structured right.