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

161–170 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#161

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

No, if it wasn't a better realization of the victims’s goals than going to trial, why would the victims have accepted it?

Its absolutely a loss for the victims.

Not just them, but they are among those losing.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#162

Post by lupusreal »

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.

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#163

Post by JumpCrisscross »

1024core wrote: post #157
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> What's the point of "restitution" if it came from the victims anyways?

The difference between having money and not.

> amount they'd be paying is practically just the interest from their earnings

Not disputing, the majority almost admits as much, but source?

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#164

Post by JumpCrisscross »

legitster wrote: post #159
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> get all of the billions back

They never gave up any cash to my knowledge. The plan was a promise.

We can conclude the Sacklers are worse off right now given they (and the creditors) accepted the deal. They may be materially better off in the future. But the rest of their lives will be about this.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#165

Post by squidbeak »

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?

I think the poster means those rich who have committed offences, but enjoy softer penalities thanks to their wealth.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#166

Post by bradford »

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?

I can see it going both ways, yes: this means that 6 billion dollars are not immediately available for compensation.

On the other hand, certain states (Washington was one, if I recall) argued that 6 billion dollars was such a pitifully small amount (relative to the damage done) that they declined to accept compensation in hopes that future lawsuits would yield more.

I view this decision as rejecting the immediate compensation, but opening up possibility for greater compensation in the future (with obvious risks and delays).

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#167

Post by JumpCrisscross »

erichocean wrote: post #155
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

What is the difference between a discharge and release as it relates to the §1123(b)(6) “any other appropriate provision” power this case is about? You seem to have clarity the Court’s members couldn’t find.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#168

Post by legitster »

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?

Chapter 11 bankruptcy law includes a "catchall" provision that “may” also “include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title.”

Historically bankruptcy courts have wide discretion to make any "appropriate" provisions, and this document is an argument about what the limits of appropriate include.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#169

Post by tadhgpearson »

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?

Well, not a loss for the legal profession for sure :D Will the victims come out with more in their pockets than they would have from this settlement? I guess we'll find out...

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#170

Post by BoredPositron »

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #138
BoredPositron wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, still nobody can "force you to trust" anything. They might force you to comply with something but they can't force you to trust. That's just nonsense.

I didn't commend on that. I commented on you replying "no" to the question "If your boss tells you you'll lose your job if you don't have sex with him, and you quit to avoid that, would you disagree with the statement that you were forced to quit?" after which you edited all your previous comments. The first of which originally just read "force?" (a single word) which leads me to believe, along with your original res…

I edited my first comment to clarify and nothing else and YOU commented on that.

We can throw dictionaries on each other however we want for me it still stands as long as you have agency over yourself nobody can force you to do anything. If they take away your agency we can talk about your arguments. But looking at your last comment you are not arguing in good faith so the discussion is over me.

Post reply on HN