Emeritus Prof Christopher May<p>You may recall a previous post about <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/JohnsonandJohsnon" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>JohnsonandJohsnon</span></a> trying to US <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/Bankruptcy" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Bankruptcy</span></a> law to limit their exposure to damages from the discovery that their <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/talc" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>talc</span></a> was <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/carcogenic" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>carcogenic</span></a>?</p><p>That attempt failed but now J&amp;J is back with a more narrowly focussed bankruptcy petition &amp; agreement from a range of those bringing cases against J&amp;J for damages.</p><p>Now, for a second time, we get to see whether using US <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/Chapter11" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>Chapter11</span></a> bankruptcy laws is seen in this case as a viable way fo dealing with <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/compensation" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>compensation</span></a> for victims</p>