Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#111

Post by roenxi »

BoredPositron wrote: post #94
roenxi wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words do indeed have specific meanings. If someone didn't get vaccinated then the government would start basically attacking basic human rights. In particular rights of freedom work, assemble, free travel, freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to practice a religion, etc (and to maintain their own health I might add) which turn up in some pretty hefty documents like the UN Declaration of Human…

You wrote "force to trust". That's highly different from what you are writing now.

If someone doesn't trust the vaccine providers they shouldn't be forced to take it. You could have figured that out by analysing the specific meanings that the words have. That position on the topic of vaccines is neither rare nor subtle.

And the sentence still looks fine to me, I don't know why you think that phrase isn't kosher.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#112

Post by inasio »

Matt Levine has covered this several times in the past, worth reading. From memory, the Purdue family had put away their money in legally sheltered arrangements, so even an unfavorable decision (to the Sacklers) would likely not be able to claw back much money. The previous deal traded the risk of trial for a perceived as decent compensation. My read is that the majority in the supreme court disagreed that you can always financial-engineer your way out of trials

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#113

Post by 12_throw_away »

psunavy03 wrote: post #25

For those claiming the Supreme Court is a political institution, I'd like to note that this was indeed a 5-4 decision. But one with Justices in the majority who were appointed by Biden, Trump, Bush 43, and Bush 41, and in the minority who were appointed by Bush 43, Obama, and Trump. It was Jackson, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas in the majority and Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, and Kavanaugh in the minority.

> For those claiming the Supreme Court is a political institution, I'd like to note that this was indeed a 5-4 decision.

Is there a name for this type of fallacy, in which a single data point is used to argue that a global trend does not exist? (Another prominent example is "it snowed somewhere, therefore climate change is not real.")

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#114

Post by AlexandrB »

photochemsyn wrote: post #37

Interestingly the same kinds of tactics used to push opiates on the general public are still being used to push amphetamine analogs - but the death rate from amphetamine addiction/overdose is much much lower (>1000X lower) than that from opiate addiction/overdose so it doesn't really hit the headlines, and arguably is not as much of a concern. From a libertarian point of view, mood- and mind-altering substance use sh…

The problem with mind altering substances is they can short circuit your rational thinking. So you can start with the most well-considered decision process ever and still end up addicted. In fact, this doesn't even require a substance. Gambling is plenty addictive to many.

There's a kind of fallacy to thinking that sufficient education can counter biological human desires and impulses in all cases.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#115

Post by LordKeren »

roenxi wrote: post #85
LordKeren wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is negligent to conflate the impacts of an addictive drug with a vaccine.

I will just annotate that with the observation that at the equivalent point (~4 years) into oxycodone's history I doubt it was well known to be addictive. Wiki suggests it was a "Miracle Drug of the 1930s" and they didn't get nervous about it until the 1970s [0]. And I doubt OxyContin came with the liability waivers that I seem to recall the COVID vaccines having. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone#History

I can say with a pretty high level of confidence that we aren’t going to be a seeing an epidemic of vaccine addiction in the coming years.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#116

Post by Barraketh »

RavingGoat wrote: post #97
prepend wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thus, in order to go after the Sackler family's money, you basically have to claw back money that Purdue paid out to the family over the years. Or you can find them personally, directly, criminally liable and their profits the result from a criminal conspiracy. Personal crimes aren’t protected by the “veil” of LLC, so any assets of the family could be liable, after criminal conviction, for any civil claims from vic…

I would think civil forfeiture could be used to take all their assets if not then the drug dealers in my town need to each form an LLC.

Well, I don't think civil forfeiture specifically would work, but like I mentioned above, yes, if the justice department wanted to criminally charge the Sacklers, they could possibly win and get a judgement against some of the money. But then that money doesn't really go to the victims - it's just a way to punish the Sacklers.

The bankruptcy settlement had a bunch of money going to families of the victims, and also to the states for anti-addiction programs, and also some money towards documenting the Purdue wrongdoings, so that the public would have better visibility just HOW this was allowed to happen in the first place

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#117

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jakewins wrote: post #92
dataflow wrote: post #19

How is there such a big divide in the court on this? Is the law really this unclear on the matter?

The opinion and dissent are actually relatively approachable and lay out exactly what the disagreement is about: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf It seems to come down to whether the sentence "[A chapter 11 bankruptcy plan may] include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title" means "A plan can contain anything anyone can imagine as reaso…

It also seems to turn whether the Sacklers seek a third-party “release,” which is precedented, or “discharge,” which is not. (The Court also assumes Purdue’s indemnification of the Sacklers will not hold, which would allow the Sacklers to drain Purdue as they fight the various claims against them.)

Interestingly, the argument for is textual. The argument against is pragmatic. (Both argue history, in my opinion, unconvincingly. They’re talking past each other on release vs discharge, a delineation neither side bothers to delve into.) The dividing line defies easy summary. (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson concurring, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting.)

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#119

Post by hinkley »

Barraketh wrote: post #58
realce wrote: post #4

>The court on a 5-4 vote ruled that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to release the Sackler family members from legal claims made by opioid victims. As part of the deal, the family, which controlled the company, had agreed to pay $6 billion that could be used to settle opioid-related claims, but only in return for a complete release from any liability in future cases. Is this actually a positive outcom…

Negative outcome. Some important points that the article here did not emphasize: 1) The Sackler family was not actually a party to this litigation. They came to the table (with most of the settlement money) specifically to get these so called '3rd party releases'. 2) Purdue is basically broke. It's also an LLC. Thus, in order to go after the Sackler family's money, you basically have to claw back money that Purdue pa…

My understanding is that Piercing the Corporate Veil has gotten easier over the years. The more egregious the robber baron class has gotten the less sympathetic the courts have been.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#120

Post by legitster »

This is a more complex case than I thought, and the dissent argument is actually very powerful and convincing:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf

Basically, the original judge did a good job - the settlement plan was reasonable and widely popular. And the Sackler family being released from liability by putting billions of personal dollars into the payment fund meant more victims would get more money immediately.

With this ruling, the Sacklers are personally legally liable again - which may make you or I more happy, but this means that victims have to pursue a much harder and more expensive set of lawsuits to get money from the Sackler family. It also means the victims of the deal don't get a voice in the proceedings, and it may also make future payouts and bankruptcies harder if there is no reason to cooperate with the state.

Post reply on HN