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

141–150 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#141

Post by LordKeren »

nox101 wrote: post #131
legitster wrote: post #120

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 mor…

why would it be harder? wouldn't it just be the next family that tries to get away with crap like this will be scolded sooner? it seeem like if you want people stop doing bad things you can't let them get away with bad things. here, the family was trying to get away with billions. The bankruptcy court said, "yay, ok". The Supreme Court said "no, not ok" I don't understand the dissent. unless the dissent is friends of…

It’s harder because it requires piercing the veil of protection of an LLC, a legal construct that is explicitly designed to limit liabilities. There are simply more legal hurdles to this.

Though I do agree with the conclusion that the bankruptcy court should not be able to grant immunity to the Sackler family. It feels deeply, deeply immoral

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#142

Post by erichocean »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #117
jakewins wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, uncon…

> the argument for is textual

And here's the language: "any other appropriate provision"

The Sacklers: the law says we can take away other people's rights to sue us as part of a bankruptcy settlement.

SC: Yeah, no, the text doesn't say that.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#143

Post by nickff »

ein0p wrote: post #129

There will be people like Sacklers until we start putting them away and throwing away the key. We do need to put rich people in jail at least every now and again, if for no other reason than to demonstrate we're not a banana republic.

>"We do need to put rich people in jail at least every now and again, if for no other reason than to demonstrate we're not a banana republic."

And to that end, the USA must demonstrate that it's totalitarian and abuses people's rights?

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#144

Post by alan-hn »

tracker1 wrote: post #132
alan-hn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can trust the process of science but we need to be mindful of how to critically examine a body of literature. When I see most lay people examine literature all they do is cherry pick what they like and discard the rest and ignore any analysis or methodological concerns

This generally seems to be true. It doesn't help that poor reporting methods exacerbate the issue.

Oh absolutely, science journalism is absolutely terrible for the most part. That's why I always try to find the original paper they're reporting on to see what's actually going on

Most journalists don't understand research either and I've even seen some PhD science writers get things wrong too but usually less often.

Science journalism is filled with incredible sweeping claims and jumps in logic that boggle the mind and are nothing like what's in the research being reported on, it truly makes me disappointed

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#145

Post by jandrese »

jcranmer wrote: post #80
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.

Four decisions were released today. We had a decision on the SEC vacating some of its enforcement powers, 6-3 with only the 3 liberal justices dissenting. We had this decision, which was 5-4, although it wasn't a clear ideological split. We had a 5-4 decision vacating an EPA regulation, with the 3 liberal justices and one of the more moderate conservative justices dissenting. We had a 6-3 decision on the EMTALA-abort…

Is there any corruption law that this court won't overturn? They seem extremely "pro" on quid pro quo.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#146

Post by [deleted] »

legitster wrote: post #120

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 mor…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#147

Post by JumpCrisscross »

erichocean wrote: post #142
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, uncon…

> the argument for is textual And here's the language: "any other appropriate provision" The Sacklers: the law says we can take away other people's rights to sue us as part of a bankruptcy settlement. SC: Yeah, no, the text doesn't say that.

> the law says we can take away other people's rights to sue us as part of a bankruptcy settlement

As the dissent notes, third-party releases are part of the law. The turn is on whether the Sacklers are having third-party liabilities discharged versus released.

The solution may be in re-drafting the Plan so it’s more clearly a release. That might mean the Sacklers can be sued for fraud, but not other things.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#148

Post by legitster »

nox101 wrote: post #131
legitster wrote: post #120

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 mor…

why would it be harder? wouldn't it just be the next family that tries to get away with crap like this will be scolded sooner? it seeem like if you want people stop doing bad things you can't let them get away with bad things. here, the family was trying to get away with billions. The bankruptcy court said, "yay, ok". The Supreme Court said "no, not ok" I don't understand the dissent. unless the dissent is friends of…

If you want money from the Purdue bankruptcy entity: you just file a claim while they still have money.

If you want money from the Sackler family: you need to lawyer up, prove a bunch of personal liability claims (which are very, very hard cases to win), and wait a long time. And hope they still have money.

While it may feel nice to eventually, maybe, be able to throw the Sackler family in jail, it basically just blows up the ability to do mass tort arbitration.

From the dissent, which even includes Sotomayor and Kagan:

"As a result of the Court’s decision, each victim and creditor receives the essential equivalent of a lottery ticket for a possible future recovery for (at most) a few of them. And as the Bankruptcy Court explained, without the non-debtor releases, there is no good reason to believe that any of the victims or state or local governments will ever recover anything."

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#149

Post by 1024core »

ein0p wrote: post #129

There will be people like Sacklers until we start putting them away and throwing away the key. We do need to put rich people in jail at least every now and again, if for no other reason than to demonstrate we're not a banana republic.

Unfortunately, vermin like the Sacklers have access to top lawyers. The two founding brothers are dead, so you won't be able to put them away; they are already put away, permanently.

However, their despicable offspring managed to flee the country with their ill-gotten gains; good luck finding them now.

My biggest beef with this case has been that people should not be allowed to just "buy" themselves out of jail. The US does not have a concept of "blood money" in its legal code (at least, not yet anyways). This agreement amounted to blood money, practically. Blood money != justice.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#150

Post by JumpCrisscross »

LordKeren wrote: post #141
nox101 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would it be harder? wouldn't it just be the next family that tries to get away with crap like this will be scolded sooner? it seeem like if you want people stop doing bad things you can't let them get away with bad things. here, the family was trying to get away with billions. The bankruptcy court said, "yay, ok". The Supreme Court said "no, not ok" I don't understand the dissent. unless the dissent is friends of…

It’s harder because it requires piercing the veil of protection of an LLC, a legal construct that is explicitly designed to limit liabilities. There are simply more legal hurdles to this. Though I do agree with the conclusion that the bankruptcy court should not be able to grant immunity to the Sackler family. It feels deeply, deeply immoral

> harder because it requires piercing the veil of protection of an LLC

Source?

It’s harder because they’re indemnified by Purdue, and their individual liability is far from established. (The opinion and dissent both refer to a monolithic “Sacklers,” but they’re individuals and trusts and whatever.)

Post reply on HN