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

151–160 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#151

Post by roenxi »

BoredPositron wrote: post #121
roenxi wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As trust is fundamentally a voluntary act. Trust involves choosing to rely on or have confidence in someone or something. By its very nature, trust cannot be forced. 1. Trust is a personal choice: It's a decision made by an individual based on their own judgment, experiences, and perceptions. 2. Trust requires vulnerability: When we trust, we willingly make ourselves vulnerable, believing the other party will not tak…

Ah, well circling back to the "words have meaning" point, that isn't a comprehensive understanding of what trust means - you're overly loading it on one aspect of the word. For example, Cambridge dictionary includes the meaning "to hope and expect that something is true" [0].

Trust doesn't require a personal choice built up over time. Some types of trust do, but that isn't a factor here as you can detected from the context. Trust is actually quite a flexible concept - you can catch some other interesting applications in security with ideas like "trusted systems" which people also may not trust in the personal sense even though they will agree that the system is trusted. That leads to awkward situations where a system can be a trusted system even if it is known to be compromised. You also get interesting things like "Trust" in the legal sense that showcase a similar flexibility.

Just to preempt a possible next comment, if you identify that one reading of a word doesn't make sense in context, the reasonable thing to do is to try the alternate readings to see which ones fit.

[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trust

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#152

Post by legitster »

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.

... you do know that banana republics did this exact thing all of the time?

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#153

Post by JumpCrisscross »

legitster wrote: post #148
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…

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 bl…

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

And as the dissent notes, this class includes the Sacklers per their 2004 indemnification agreement. So we first need to nullify that to avoid draining.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#154

Post by nickff »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #72

The Sacklers want to have their cake and eat it. They want both: - To avoid filing for bankruptcy, and - For a bankruptcy settlement to release them from additional liability.

Are you talking about the Sacklers as individuals, a family unit, or in their capacity as decision-makers for Purdue? There seem to be a relatively complex set of incentives and options in each of these capacities.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#155

Post by erichocean »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #147
erichocean wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If this decision was just about third-party releases, it wouldn't be before the court. And you know that.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#157

Post by 1024core »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #139
raizer88 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had lost a family member to drug abuse I would want justice (ie. jail time) not money.

> I would want justice (ie. jail time) not money Retribution not restitution [1]. “Justice” in this context is ambiguous. [1] https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose...

What's the point of "restitution" if it came from the victims anyways? The Sacklers would have kept all of their ill-gotten gains under this settlement. The amount they'd be paying is practically just the interest from their earnings.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#158

Post by mcmcmc »

nickff wrote: post #143
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?

Is rule of law totalitarian? Wealth is not be a get out of jail free card, and imprisonment is not inherently an abuse of rights. While the US prison industrial complex is vile and abusive, the cushy white collar prisons aren’t where those abuses are happening.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#159

Post by legitster »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #137
vanderZwan wrote: post #108

> WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blew up the massive bankruptcy reorganization of opioid maker Purdue Pharma, finding that the settlement inappropriately included legal protections for the Sackler family, meaning that billions of dollars secured for victims is now threatened. Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims?

> Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims? As the dissent notes, this decision means the victims won’t get money now. When is an open question, as well as whether it will be similar, more or less after litigation costs, and to whom it will be paid. What is certain is the Sacklers will be hurt more. (Unless a couple bizarre legal maneuvres pay off, e.g. the Sacklers extinguishing l…

> What is certain is the Sacklers will be hurt more.

Maybe? They get all of the billions back and now have time and a reason to start building a defense.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#160

Post by EnergyAmy »

legitster wrote: post #152
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. ... you do know that banana republics did this exact thing all of the time?

I suspect you misinterpreted what they said. We should be putting guilty people in jail, even if they're rich and powerful.
Post reply on HN