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

171–180 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#171

Post by NickC25 »

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.

And they'll get it - they stashed a lot of their gains overseas, and they'll keep those gains while continuing to live a lavish life amongst the elites of the world.

I lost a very close friend to opoid addiction, and Purdue was based one town over from where I grew up. I hope the entire Sackler family gets fined and taxed to the point of genuine destitute poverty, and then some. Genuine scum.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#172

Post by lupusreal »

inasio wrote: post #112

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 al…

Lawyers are fixated on the money for obvious reasons, but the money will never really fix what the Sacklers did (particularly for the many victims who are now dead.) Restitution is largely a farce and we should be focusing on retribution.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#173

Post by roboror »

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…

Another thing to note is that the scheduling of the substances you speak of (and other non-scheduled like ozempic for example) merely puts them behind a prescription paywall--the wealthy have easy access to beneficial medicine and few to no consequenses from their use, whether that be criminal (possession or behavioral problems under the influence) or the cost of resulting health and addiction issues. Resulting in the non-wealthy suffering exponentially more.

It's very important that these societal and monetary debts are not only paid out, but go to the right people.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#174

Post by legitster »

EnergyAmy wrote: post #160
legitster wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#175

Post by jimbob45 »

acomjean wrote: post #53
SoftTalker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are doctors so easy to manipulate? They learn about addiction in medical school. Why would they believe a pharmaceutical company saying "...oh but this opioid is not addictive..."

It seems that in the US there has been a trend to "de-regulate" or let businesses regulate themselves. It works for a while, but eventually it seems to go south. I think "regulatory capture" is the term. I think of Boeing being allowed to inspect there own planes.. I think drug manufactures submit there own studies, as the FDA doesn't have a budget to test all the things themselves. The opiod manufactures are organiz…

Arguably, you have it backwards. Self-regulation doesn't work for a while, and then it works ultra well. Boeing got away with poor self-regulation for decades but now their business almost certainly will implode within decades and their market position will be taken over by those who were willing and able to self-regulate. They were rightfully punished and the US government was (theoretically) able to spend more resources regulating elsewhere.

That said, the lag time between the beginning of failing to self-regulate and the beginning of consequences showing up are likely too far apart to make it a sound doctrine for the US government.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#176

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bradford wrote: post #166
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 futur…

> 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

As the dissent notes, “all 50 state Attorneys General have signed on to this plan.” The holdouts were “a small group of Canadian creditors and one lone individual.”

I always thought of the Sackler carve-out as a scam. But the dissent gives me pause. This ruling trades restitution for retribution. In all likelihood, many classes of victims—such as small victims, small states and local governments—won’t see a penny, at least for years.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#177

Post by legitster »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #164
legitster wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

???

The Supreme court case was specifically about the $6 billion dollars the Sacklers committed to the bankruptcy fund. And this ruling says they are not allowed to contribute to it.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#178

Post by JumpCrisscross »

michaelt wrote: post #101
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 law surrounding Chapter 11 reorganisation plans only covers the relationships and responsibilities between debtors and creditors. It doesn't say anything about third parties. But it does include a term saying a plan "may" also "include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title" - subject to the approval of a judge. Applying the broadest possible interpretation o…

> law surrounding Chapter 11 reorganisation plans only covers the relationships and responsibilities between debtors and creditors. It doesn't say anything about third parties

Yes it does. It covers third-party releases—there is ample precedent for that. The Court held this isn’t a release, but a discharge. (Idk.)

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#180

Post by richbell »

legitster wrote: post #174
EnergyAmy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

> I know of no other way to read this other than lock away people because they are rich whether they are guilty or not.

Is there a reason you omitted the first sentence from that quote?

Post reply on HN