The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
... that the Texas two-step bankruptcy is a controversial method used by companies to resolve their liabilities while protecting their assets? Source: "To handle these mass tort liabilities, Johnson & Johnson has followed the lead of many businesses and turned to the bankruptcy courts. But it has done so with a twist. Unlike the businesses that pioneered using bankruptcy for mass torts, Johnson & Johnson is not filing for bankruptcy. Instead, it is dividing itself using an obscure Texas law, moving its assets into one business and its talc liabilities into another, and having the liability-laden business file for bankruptcy. This maneuver, known as the “Texas Two-Step,” threatens the tort recovery of tens of thousands of talc claimants." (internal citation omitted) Michael A. Francus, "Texas Two-Stepping Out of Bankruptcy" Michigan Law Review June 2022 https://michiganlawreview.org/texas-two-stepping-out-of-bankruptcy/
I'm in! I'll review this one, but I'll start by pointing out that this is a great candidate for a goofy hook for the end of the queue, or even for April Fool's, something along the lines of "... that a solvent company can access the bankruptcy courts by doing the Texas two-step?"
I love it, great idea! Thank you for reviewing. :) BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Here in Texas, dancing the dance is called "doing the two-step", so I'd word it that way, but it's up to you to propose. I've given it a read, and I hope to check through the sources tomorrow. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Overall: The article was new enough to mainspace when nominated, is easily long enough (>7,000 chars), and no QPQ is needed. The cited sources support the substantive content of the article, and I'm not seeing any signs of plagiarism from online sources. All of the proposed hooks are supported by citations in the article. I think ALT4 is the most interesting. There are a couple of points made that are not currently cited to a source, and I couldn't quickly find them in the sources nearby; if those can be handled, then the article should be ready to run. My concerns have been addressed, and the article looks ready to go. Good work! Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The article was new enough to mainspace when nominated, is easily long enough (>7,000 chars), and no QPQ is needed. The cited sources support the substantive content of the article, and I'm not seeing any signs of plagiarism from online sources. All of the proposed hooks are supported by citations in the article. I think ALT4 is the most interesting.