3 ms·
With the Sackler family funneling out money prior to this, is there any chance a judge would refuse the bankruptcy?
by joshmn 7y ago
With the Sackler family funneling out money prior to this, is there any chance a judge would refuse the bankruptcy?
- Aloha 7y agoLast I heard the transfers were several years ago
- mcbain 7y agoRecently in the news: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/health/sacklers-purdue-opioids.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/health/sacklers-purdue-op...
- Aloha 7y agoYes, the article points out that the transfers were several years ago
- loeg 7y agoPeople 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.
- casefields 7y ago"Sackler was involved in 137 wire transfers totaling nearly $20 million, and some of those transfers occurred as recently as 2018, the filing indicates." Who's misreading what now?
- loeg 7y agomcbain's comment that I am replying to, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20981242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20981242 , is referring to the NYTimes story on $1B in transfers. Those substantial transfers ($1B) were a decade ago. The sentence you quote does not appear in the NYTimes piece and is, in comparison, peanuts. I do not have access to the Bloomberg piece for full context, but the sentence you quote does not say the movements were self-payments from Purdue rather than just personal transfers between personal accounts. It also does not say all $20M was in 2018; there could be a $1k wire in 2018 for all we know from the single sentence.
- Scoundreller 7y agoAnd you can find a lot of the trusts on the Panama Papers. Law firm appeared to be Appleby.
- casefields 7y agoThe transfers, through Swiss banks accounts were happening up until 2018: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/us/sackler-family-purdue-pharma-case/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/us/sackler-family-purdue-phar...
- Scoundreller 7y agoNo doubt. I think the peak of patented OxyContin was late 2000s/early 2010s before it all went generic.
- dd36 7y agoYes. Clawback.
- loeg 7y agoAll the self-payments ("funneling out") the public knows about were years before the lawsuits. Unless you know something the rest of us don't...
- SolarNet 7y agoThat opioids are addictive and that a company that lied about that was probably going to face a bunch of lawsuits. I'm pretty sure that was obvious to many people. But it was probably especially obvious to the people lying about it to make billions of dollars.
- nabla9 7y ago20 states and D.C. reject the settlement. They think there is a good change to prove fraudulent intent behind those transfers and claw back those funds. 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 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.
- simonh 7y agoThe Purdue PAC is a big donor mainly, though not exclusively to republican campaigns.
- mywittyname 7y agoIt's pretty clear which party listens to their donors better.
- newguy1234 7y agoNo. They will sue the sackler family directly.
- dragonwriter 7y ago26 states already are.
- peteretep 7y ago> The family has rejected calls by some state attorneys general to boost their guarantee to $4.5 billion, and almost 25 states are opposing the family’s settlement offer.