21–30 of 196 posts
SO what does this mean for non-US litigants, or future non-US litigants?
Also not all US based litigants are part of the settlement that is being worked out. There are also individuals who are being personally sued that aren't part of this as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best outcome would be directing resources at preventing and treating opioid addiction, not at punishing the drug manufacturer.
That just sends the message that the rich can get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people and will just seek new ways to get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people.
Are the other manufacturers of oxycontin being sued too? I know that Purdue tried to underplay their role, but from the best #s I've seen they've only sold 20% of the market. https://www.statnews.com/2019/09/09/purdue-pharma-data-downp...
As far as I know, generic manufacturers of off-patent drugs usually aren't sued.
On the one side, they don't actively promote/market their products to prescribers or patients, but I'd still think they share some blame by manufacturing it.
Looks like they got a golden escape hatch. Sounds like this arm of the company will end up controlled by a government trust. The best outcome would probably be the government running the operation at break even, lowering costs, and heavily regulating how much product it could give to hospitals.
Pierce the veil and go after the family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pierce the veil and go after the family.
They are wealthy Americans. They are untouchable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bankruptcy? What do you propose as an alternative when liabilities exceed assets?
Piercing the veil. This is not a lemonade stand going under. Here, "Liabilities" correspond to dead bodies. In the thousands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best outcome would be directing resources at preventing and treating opioid addiction, not at punishing the drug manufacturer.
That just sends the message that the rich can get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people and will just seek new ways to get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people.
But I get it. Someone dies and it’s the drug dealers fault, and punishing them will make everyone feel better. Except it doesn’t do anything about the actual problem (opioid addiction).
It feels to me like the elation here is because the Sacklers are rich and people really don’t like that, rather than any sort of victory in combating opiate addiction.
With the Sackler family funneling out money prior to this, is there any chance a judge would refuse the bankruptcy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah this. I really wish there was some way to sentence these billionaires to the middle class for the rest of their lives. Some sort of "external" prison where their net worth is held to that of the median net worth of the OMB's "middle class" range.
Can we do it for everyone?