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

211–220 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#211

Post by prepend »

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

I think the argument is against the Sacklers personally and their actions, not based on their ownership stake of the LLC. So this wouldn’t involve piercing the veil.

Only if suitors were going against Sackler assets to pay off Purdue corporate stuff.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#212

Post by rufus_foreman »

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…

>> Out of the most recent 6 decisions

That is not a representative sample of Supreme Court decisions. This is one of the last few opinion days of the year, the opinions being released are the most contentious ones the court is dealing with.

Of the first 6 decisions of the year, 4 were unanimous, 1 was per curiam, and one was a 6-3 split with the dissenters being Gorsuch, Sotomayor and Jackson.

Those 6 decisions would also not be a representative sample.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#213

Post by rayiner »

jandrese wrote: post #206
rayiner wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't "overturn" this "corruption law." This was a prosecution under 18 USC 666, which is titled "theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds." In this case, the question was framed to the Supreme Court whether 18 USC 666 applies to so-called "gratuity" payments. That framing was because the prosecution in the case below could not prove that the defendant had anticipated a payment in the future…

In this particular case a mayor rigged the competition for a garbage truck contract so that one particular company would win it. That company then overcharged the city and gave a kickback in the form of $13,000 to the mayor. The Supreme Court said this was fine and let the mayor off of the hook. If you can't prosecute with this level of evidence the law is effectively dead.

That's not what the Supreme Court decided, and its extremely misleading to suggest that.

At trial, the government alleged the mayor had "rigged the competition." But the government argued, and the jury was instructed, and the Seventh Circuit agreed, that the government did not need to prove that. Because, under the Seventh Circuit's view of the law, it did not matter whether the subsequent payment actually influenced his official act. So on appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the jury verdict on the assumption the government did not need to prove that the competition was actually rigged.

So the case that came up to the Supreme Court didn't have the issue of whether he rigged the competition. The jury was told it didn't matter, and we don't know what the jury would have decided had they been told something else. The question before the Supreme Court was only whether 18 USC 666 requires proof that the payment did or could influence the official act. It did not consider the factual scenario under which he rigged the competition because we don't know if the jury would have found he did that.

Now the case goes back to the trial court to see if the government wants to retry the case, where they actually have to prove corrupt influence.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#214

Post by qarl »

Seems like the justices missed a great opportunity here to rule in favor of the settlement and then receive $$$$$$ next year as a thank you gift.

Because buying government officials is now entirely legal.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop...

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#215

Post by HDThoreaun »

SoftTalker wrote: post #181
alan-hn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because physicians don't get much if any training in evaluating evidence and research, they generally believe what they're told by scientists. Which is a shame, they should be taught critical evaluation of literature They also don't have time because of the artificial limits of physicians graduating every year, combined with more bureaucracy being pushed on them day by day

> physicians don't get much if any training in evaluating evidence and research I find this surprising, if true.

It is largely true. Evidence in medicine widely exists but most doctors arent keeping up with it. There has been a bit of a movement toward evidence based medicine in the last decade but most docotrs are still relying on what they learned in med school instead of keeping up with literature.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#216

Post by qarl »

adastra22 wrote: post #136
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, it is. The victims had a settlement agreement worth billions of dollars, which the Sackler family was going to willingly provide in exchange for legal protections. Now that legal protections are off the table, it is very unlikely that any new settlement will be as generous, and in fact quite unlikely that any settlement will be achieved at all.

But also very likely that the case will go to court and the damages will be substantially higher.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#218

Post by jpalawaga »

This is the only reasonable outcome... you can't deny some people justice just because other people think it's fine.

The sacklers have done immeasurable damage to the country. All of their wealth should be removed. Their foundation should be dismantled and used to fund damage and mental health services for addicts of the opioid crisis that they went on to create.

And perhaps some of the individual pushers/purveyors of the drugs, too.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#220

Post by petesergeant »

jpalawaga wrote: post #218

This is the only reasonable outcome... you can't deny some people justice just because other people think it's fine. The sacklers have done immeasurable damage to the country. All of their wealth should be removed. Their foundation should be dismantled and used to fund damage and mental health services for addicts of the opioid crisis that they went on to create. And perhaps some of the individual pushers/purveyors o…

Yes, although in theory the justices are ruling on what the law means, rather than ruling on what they think it should mean for justice to be served.
Post reply on HN