51–60 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
Great now all the opioid production and prescriptions and thus addiction will stop! Oh wait...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recently in the news: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/health/sacklers-purdue-op...
People keep misreading this, or maybe just looking at the headline and getting the wrong impression. 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.
Who's misreading what now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
They lied about the drugs which they actively marketed to doctors. That’s far more than just manufacturing and opened them up to significantly increased liability.
The lying in marketing, over the period 1995-2001, was already litigated in 2007.
Great now all the opioid production and prescriptions and thus addiction will stop! Oh wait...
Most opiod deaths are from fentanyl. Most fentanyl comes from China, not perscription medication.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o... Fig 3-5 & descriptions.
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.
It is true. The Sacklers will never see the inside of a prison and will remain billionaires after the lawsuits and settlements.
Seems like an abuse of the limited liability. Does the US have a way to set that aside? I know other countries do
Excess payments to ownership (especially if you think the company is about to face a huge liability) is a classic example of one of the justifications for a judge to do just that: make the owners personally liable rather than just the company.
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.
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…
When they learned doctors were prescribing it for eight hours, they tried to "re-train" them to use the "proper" (read: their) dosing recommendation, because there were cheaper drugs with six of eight hour doses.
Sure, the doctors made the prescriptions, but you, and I, and everyone who thinks honestly about it for two and a half seconds realizes that no matter what the recommendation is, enough people who are in bad enough pain to be prescribed oxy will take it when they need it, recommendation be damned, that to have issued that recommendation in the first place was an act of bad faith.
They marketed the drug on a lie in order to get doctors to prescribe it, which fueled — if not created — an epidemic, which has killed tens of thousands of people. Their hands are not clean, here.
With the Sackler family funneling out money prior to this, is there any chance a judge would refuse the bankruptcy?
The lawsuit is alleging systematic fraud and requests an order for the Sacklers to return any transferred assets; and to restrain them from disposing of any property. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/oag_opioid_lawsuit.pdf
Interesting that these decisions are so political. States with republican majority and AGs agreed to settlement, the states with democratic majority did not. Only four AG's favoring the settlement are democrats.