ROFL

wrote:
Yes, I am a lawyer. As such, I am attuned to looking for logical proof
of an assertion. You have provided none. Being a manager and business
owner for "many" years qualifies for nothing other than something to do
with the specific area of your business. Your professed knowledge of
"these things", whatever "they" are, is so vague and general as to
render your opinion even more suspect. Moreover, your logic, if it can
be so charitibly characterised, is utterly backwards. If there were a
motive to insulate themselves from responsibility (i.e., liability) for
a defective product they would have been independently owned and not
have the nexus to the other company. The issue, however, is not that,
anyway; what and where are there ANY, ANY facts to support your rather
tired accusation that the actions were a reaction to so-called
bloodsuckers (and unsupported) allegations of overeaching by the
American justice system? If you truly knew anything about business,
you would know that these type of dual company setups are done
routinely for, primarily, tax and financial reasons way beyond the
scope of this newsgroup's interest area (which I entirely understand
and agree with), and too numerous to discuss, especially with people
who are more interested in generalities than cogency.