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

651–660 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#651

Post by dehrmann »

dylan604 wrote: post #273
rootusrootus wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the patience the US has with getting justice against other individuals who have fled our jurisdiction, we could do the same here. We also have an enormous amount of influence in the financial sector in other western nations, so we could at least make their lives less lavish and comfortable. Throwing up our hands and declaring it an unsolvable issue just encourages others to misbehave and then escape the s…

If we can seize Russian oligarch's money, why could the US Gov't not seize assets of a US citizen even if living abroad?

Nit: the assets were frozen, not seized. There was recently hand wringing in the EU over using the principle or interest to fund Ukraine, and they settled on interest because seizing assets scares any foreign investors who might someday disagree with a government.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#652

Post by bumby »

nickburns wrote: post #502
voisin wrote: post #446

It’s pretty wild that everyone acknowledges that the Sacklers engaged in a “milking program” going from 15% to 70% distributions after the first lawsuits in order to strip the company of assets and then hide behind the company to shield liability. This alone should allow claimants to pierce the corporate veil and go after the family directly.

> allow claimants to pierce the corporate veil and go after the family directly. This decision is a win both for that cause, and also forestalling precedent that would allow future wrongdoing corporations from 'shielding the veil' so to speak through bankruptcy. A win-win indeed.

At least initially, I'm glad to see this verdict if it means such behavior can't hide behind the corporate veil. However, it's important to acknowledge it's not necessarily a win-win-win. By reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, this decision seems to delay opioid victims the settlement they previously won.

>"As a result, opioid victims are now deprived of the substantial monetary recovery that they long fought for and finally secured after years of litigation...virtually all of the opioid victims and creditors in this case fervently support approval of Purdue’s bankruptcy reorganization plan."

Time will tell if this ruling gives enough preventative pressure to future cases to make it worth the additional pain to the present claimants.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#653

Post by FactKnower69 »

qarl wrote: post #418
micromacrofoot wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a loss of ~1/2 of their net worth. That's significant. They are now likely to pay much less by settling smaller individual cases, which will take significantly longer and cost claimants significantly more to pursue. When they die (which will be soon, most of them are 75+) it'll become even more difficult to get anything. The deal that was overruled was certainly not justice, but reality will likely be worse. The…

> They are now likely to pay much less... So then why did they choose to settle? That makes no sense. The only reason a defendant settles is to minimize potential losses.

>The only reason a defendant settles is to minimize potential losses.

???

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#654

Post by ClumsyPilot »

thegrimmest wrote: post #634
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting if I can sell my organs, Essential for survival, That I’m selling my life logically I should be able to sell my life in other ways. So I should be able to sell myself into slavery. If so, Then your idea of freedom creates more un-freedom. If not, Then you must have a logical reason why selling my liver and dying after that is okay but selling myself and living after that is not okay. And it cannot rely on…

> So I should be able to sell myself into slavery. No, because that would imply that a person can own another person. Free, morally equal, people cannot own each other. It would also imply that present-you can obligate future-you in a way that fundamentally compromises future-you's freedom. Present-you can however terminate his own existence, since present-you has the strongest claim on it. Interactions must be conse…

> Interactions must be consensual with the possibility to opt-out backed by bankruptcy protection

So student loans, as they are not discharge able in bankruptcy, are a form of debt bondage / slavery?

Also in UK you have to pay to declare yourself bankrupt, which is also questionable.

Also you can’t back-out of an organ sale, you are under Anastasia and then you are dead. The idea that it’s better than still being alive seems morally myopic to me.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#655

Post by efitz »

bumby wrote: post #652
nickburns wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> allow claimants to pierce the corporate veil and go after the family directly. This decision is a win both for that cause, and also forestalling precedent that would allow future wrongdoing corporations from 'shielding the veil' so to speak through bankruptcy. A win-win indeed.

At least initially, I'm glad to see this verdict if it means such behavior can't hide behind the corporate veil. However, it's important to acknowledge it's not necessarily a win-win-win. By reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, this decision seems to delay opioid victims the settlement they previously won. > "As a result, opioid victims are now deprived of the substantial monetary recovery that they long f…

But now that the ruling potentially exposes the Sacklers directly, they have much more incentive to negotiate a new settlement. If the plaintiff's attorneys are clever, they will leverage this to come to a quick settlement of approximately the same amount, with the threat that delays will bring demands for higher amounts.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#656

Post by thegrimmest »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #654
thegrimmest wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I should be able to sell myself into slavery. No, because that would imply that a person can own another person. Free, morally equal, people cannot own each other. It would also imply that present-you can obligate future-you in a way that fundamentally compromises future-you's freedom. Present-you can however terminate his own existence, since present-you has the strongest claim on it. Interactions must be conse…

> Interactions must be consensual with the possibility to opt-out backed by bankruptcy protection So student loans, as they are not discharge able in bankruptcy, are a form of debt bondage / slavery? Also in UK you have to pay to declare yourself bankrupt, which is also questionable. Also you can’t back-out of an organ sale, you are under Anastasia and then you are dead. The idea that it’s better than still being ali…

Student loans are not dischargeable by bankruptcy because an education is not an asset that can be seized and sold during the process. There should be (and are) pretty strict limits on how your wages can be garnished to repay this debt. However I do agree that student loans are a form of debt bondage, and are questionably ethical for that reason. I would much prefer student loans not be given special protection. That would at least help us stop subsidizing educations that do not lead to productive careers.

I would not be opposed to licensed professions (eg. doctors, lawyers) adopting policies that would revoke licenses for members defaulting on their student loans via bankruptcy. I don't imagine any intervention would be required for such policies to arise if the special status of student loans were to be reconsidered.

> Also you can’t back-out of an organ sale

Yes of course you can only back out up until the point you are rendered unconscious. You have to reconsider before then. The idea that "life" and "death" are somehow morally important states is what has been "hammered into us from a young age". Morality is a relationship between (free and equal) moral agents. The important concept is therefore agency and its expression via consent.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#657

Post by aniviacat »

photochemsyn wrote: post #243
AlexandrB wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with mind altering substances is they can short circuit your rational thinking. So you can start with the most well-considered decision process ever and still end up addicted. In fact, this doesn't even require a substance. Gambling is plenty addictive to many. There's a kind of fallacy to thinking that sufficient education can counter biological human desires and impulses in all cases.

That's the authoritarian view - people don't know what's good for them, so their behavior needs to be controlled by the state as informed by a small group of elites who themselves are somehow free from the influence of those biological human desires and impulses... which is why drug testing as a condition of employment was never implemented for political candidates, heads of bureaucratic government agencies, or corpo…

>a small group of elites who themselves are somehow free from the influence of those biological human desires and impulses...

They don't need to be. A person addicted to drugs is perfectly capable of creating laws prohibiting drug use.

The "impulse" equivalent for a lawmaker would be that once they feel withdrawal, they will spontaneously pass a law allowing drug use again.

Since (luckily) passing a law is far too complex to happen spontaneously, this scenario cannot occur.

ETA:

>which is why drug testing as a condition of employment was never implemented for political candidates, heads of bureaucratic government agencies, or corporate CEOs.

If drug use is "only" prevented for the 99% of people who do not fill these roles, that is still a massive improvement.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#658

Post by aniviacat »

J_Shelby_J wrote: post #305
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…

Difference is the death rate from prescription ADHD meds is zero, and they’re not addictive like opiates. I’m open to discussing the underlying problems that push people to take ADHD meds. Like the insane work life required to just maintain the same standard of lives as our parents generation, or modern devices eating our attention spans. But limiting access to ADHD drugs is just going to affect the most vulnerable a…

>Hey, while we’re at it let’s make caffeine a scheduled drug. It’s actually addicting, it’s long we half-life makes it more likely to effect sleep, and its vastly over consumed by everyone starting in middle school.

Yeah, let's do that.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#659

Post by labcomputer »

bumby wrote: post #652
nickburns wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> allow claimants to pierce the corporate veil and go after the family directly. This decision is a win both for that cause, and also forestalling precedent that would allow future wrongdoing corporations from 'shielding the veil' so to speak through bankruptcy. A win-win indeed.

At least initially, I'm glad to see this verdict if it means such behavior can't hide behind the corporate veil. However, it's important to acknowledge it's not necessarily a win-win-win. By reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, this decision seems to delay opioid victims the settlement they previously won. > "As a result, opioid victims are now deprived of the substantial monetary recovery that they long f…

> By reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, this decision seems to delay opioid victims the settlement they previously won.

The problem is that this sets an ugly precedent. The bankruptcy settlement is basically "I can make a deal with A that takes away your ability to sue B, even though I wasn't suing B and you are". It makes no sense. The dissenting opinion is the epitome of "fuck you, I got mine."

Suppose we discover next year that one of the RNA covid vaccines causes cancer with 100% probability. The vaccine maker, on the hook for trillions of dollars of damages with no possible way to pay, declares bankruptcy (victims get approximately nothing). Elon Musk steps in and offers to contribute 20 billion dollars to help compensate the victims who would otherwise get nothing. All he asks is that the bankruptcy court dismiss all claims related to his pay package, stock manipulation and libel on twitter. The victims overwhelmingly approve the settlement and the judge oks it. After all, bankruptcy judges have wide discretion and $20 billion is better than $0.

Is that ok?

In my analogy, Elon Musk (and most of the people suing him) are not related to the vaccine maker (but there could be overlap among some of the plaintiffs and Musk could own some shares of the vaccine maker). But, technically, the same is true with Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family and plaintiffs. Yes, the Sacklers are more closely related to Purdue than Musk and the hypothetical vaccine company, but that's just a matter of degree.

In the Purdue bankruptcy, the victims of Purdue voted (and the court agreed) to take the Sackler's money and in exchange prevent anyone at all in the United States from suing the Sacklers about anything at all related to opioids. Even people who are not eligible to be members of the Purdue bankruptcy settlement cannot sue the Sacklers!

If the Sackler settlement was allowed to stand, it effectively allows billionaires to buy their way out of liability for unrelated things if they donate some money to sympathetic victims. All they would need to do is create some degree of nexus between themselves and the entity declaring bankruptcy, sufficient for a bankruptcy judge to ok the settlement.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#660

Post by mcguire »

thegrimmest wrote: post #439
mcguire wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purdue aggressively marketed OxyContin as having a very small rate of addiction to doctors who weren't pain specialists and thus had little experience with controlled medications, while providing a dosing regime that was almost designed to cause addiction. (It's sole advantage was as a timed-release medication; if pain returned before time for the next dose, doctors were instructed (strongly) to raise the dosage rath…

Blindly listening to a company trying to sell you something has never been a good idea. Doctors doing just that despite the clear, obvious, conflict of interest is their failure, not Purdue's. Thinking that an individual or organization with a vested interest will not bullshit you at every turn is absurdly naive. This is why third-party testing, accreditation, certification, and audits are a thing. > doctors who were…

Everyone in every industry that I know about relies on true information from their suppliers, from software to produce. They're the ones who know about the products, after all. In fact, pharmaceuticals are the one industry most likely to treat suppliers at adversaries, with FDA regulations continually attacked as too stringent.

Purdue was actively lying about their drugs.

"Purdue trained its sales representatives to carry the message that the risk of addiction was “less than one percent.”50(p99) The company cited studies by Porter and Jick,51 who found iatrogenic addiction in only 4 of 11 882 patients using opioids and by Perry and Heidrich,52 who found no addiction among 10 000 burn patients treated with opioids. Both of these studies, although shedding some light on the risk of addiction for acute pain, do not help establish the risk of iatrogenic addiction when opioids are used daily for a prolonged time in treating chronic pain. There are a number of studies, however, that demonstrate that in the treatment of chronic non–cancer-related pain with opioids, there is a high incidence of prescription drug abuse. Prescription drug abuse in a substantial minority of chronic-pain patients has been demonstrated in studies by Fishbain et al. (3%–18% of patients),53 Hoffman et al. (23%),54 Kouyanou et al. (12%),55 Chabal et al. (34%),56 Katz et al. (43%),57 Reid et al. (24%–31%),58 and Michna et al. (45%).59 A recent literature review showed that the prevalence of addiction in patients with long-term opioid treatment for chronic non–cancer-related pain varied from 0% to 50%, depending on the criteria used and the subpopulation studied.60"

"The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/)

"Purdue has known about the problem for decades. Even before OxyContin went on the market, clinical trials showed many patients weren’t getting 12 hours of relief. Since the drug’s debut in 1996, the company has been confronted with additional evidence, including complaints from doctors, reports from its own sales reps and independent research.

"When many doctors began prescribing OxyContin at shorter intervals in the late 1990s, Purdue executives mobilized hundreds of sales reps to “refocus” physicians on 12-hour dosing. Anything shorter “needs to be nipped in the bud. NOW!!” one manager wrote to her staff."

"‘You want a description of hell?’ OxyContin’s 12-hour problem" (https://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/)

From what I've seen (women sent home days after a c-section with Ibuprofen as the only pain medication; all of the doctors near me displaying signs saying they will not treat chronic pain), pain medication may well be under-prescribed at this point.

Post reply on HN