Questions on Complex Litigation

1) Isn't the court in In Re Air Crash Disaster set on one law (or one rule concerning punitive damages) applying to all the actions against a defendant? Doesn't it distort the choice-of-law analysis to get to this decision?

2) Should we simply give up on standard choice-of-law analysis in mass tort cases? Isn't that really what the Agent Orange case does?

3) Is the court in In Re Air Crash Disaster right that the states of the plaintiffs' domiciles are interested only in compensation to the plaintiffs, not punitive damages?

4) The court in In Re Air Crash Disaster, when choosing between Illinois, California and Missouri law under Illinois's 2nd Restatement choice of law approach, chose Illinois law to apply to MDC even though Illinois was the least interested state. Does that make sense?

5) How does the court conclude that punitive damages are not allowable against MDC under Caifornia's comparative impairment approach? Is the court saying that Illinois law applies, as under the 2nd Restatement? Or is it saying that punitive damages are not allowed without specifying whether this is under Illinois or California law? Does that make sense?