▁billion , ▁a ▁reduction ▁of ▁approximately ▁ 9 0 ▁percent . ▁ ▁The ▁pla int iffs ▁strongly ▁challeng ed ▁this ▁finding ▁and ▁moved ▁to ▁" re - open ▁the ▁hearing ▁on ▁Gar lock ' s ▁li ability ," ▁based ▁on ▁new ▁evidence ▁that ▁Gar lock ▁was ▁in ▁possession ▁of ▁this ▁evidence ▁and ▁indeed ▁had ▁been ▁for ▁dec ades , ▁but ▁hid ▁this ▁from ▁the ▁court ▁and ▁" present ed ▁false ▁testim ony ▁at ▁the ▁estimation ▁hearing ." ▁▁ ▁In ▁mid - Oct ober ▁ 2 0 1 4 , ▁U . S . ▁Bank rupt cy ▁Judge ▁George ▁H od ges ▁ruled ▁that ▁all ▁evidence ▁supporting ▁his ▁decision ▁to ▁se al ▁information ▁in ▁the ▁case ▁be ▁un se aled ▁as ▁part ▁of ▁a ▁bro ader ▁exam ination ▁of ▁potential ▁fra ud ▁in ▁the ▁case . ▁However , ▁Gar lock ▁continues ▁to ▁resist ▁dis clos ing ▁documents ▁showing ▁why ▁the ▁company ▁settled ▁its ▁earlier ▁cases . ▁ ▁Pla int iffs ▁are ▁seeking ▁to ▁comp el ▁Gar lock ▁to ▁release ▁this ▁information , ▁which ▁Gar lock ▁says ▁led ▁to ▁infl ated ▁settlement s ▁but ▁the ▁pla int iffs ▁say ▁were ▁reached ▁due ▁to ▁significant ▁evidence ▁of ▁Gar lock ' s ▁li ability . ▁▁ ▁In ▁January ▁ 2 0 1 5 , ▁Gar lock ▁agreed ▁to ▁pay ▁$ 3 5 8 ▁million ▁over ▁ 4 0 ▁years ▁to ▁sett le ▁all ▁future ▁( not ▁current ) ▁as best os - related ▁injury ▁claims , ▁but ▁in ▁March ▁ 2 0 1 6 ▁both ▁sides ▁settled