41–50 of 196 posts
With the Sackler family funneling out money prior to this, is there any chance a judge would refuse the bankruptcy?
Last I heard the transfers were several years ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are wealthy Americans. They are untouchable.
This is not true, the Sackler families have already put up $4 billion dollars of their own money as part of one settlement in this and they're still being sued by others not part of the settlement. There's also a criminal investigation into members of the Sackler family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Purdue never prescribed opioids to anyone. They only sold them to hospitals and doctors, after the FDA let them do it. Not sure what message punishing them is supposed to send? 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 Sackl…
Seems like an abuse of the limited liability. Does the US have a way to set that aside? I know other countries do
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are wealthy Americans. They are untouchable.
This is not true, the Sackler families have already put up $4 billion dollars of their own money as part of one settlement in this and they're still being sued by others not part of the settlement. There's also a criminal investigation into members of the Sackler family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last I heard the transfers were several years ago
Recently in the news: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/health/sacklers-purdue-op...
The news in that piece is that NY discovered the transfers at all. The transfers themselves are a decade old. The payments to the Sacklers from Purdue are from 2008-2016 but the lawsuits only date to 2018. All of this is in the article if you read it.
I.e., no self-payments after lawsuits became material threat.
SO what does this mean for non-US litigants, or future non-US litigants?
Well according to the WSJ, what's left of Purdue after the bankruptcy will be owned by a trust who's only purpose is to repay the litigants. So I imagine they'll just be part of that. 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.
With the Sackler family funneling out money prior to this, is there any chance a judge would refuse the bankruptcy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Purdue never prescribed opioids to anyone. They only sold them to hospitals and doctors, after the FDA let them do it. Not sure what message punishing them is supposed to send? 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 Sackl…
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/world-health-organiz...