4 ms·

That's not how justice works; damning quotes determine guilt; not the magnitude of guilt.

• tyingq 6y ago
  It was a negotiated settlement, there weren't any pre-set rules on how the amount was agreed upon.
  • asjldkfin 6y ago
    Except there is, a negotiation is based on the next best alternative; which is the legal system. Mcks wouldn’t have settled for that much if they thought they’d fare better in court.
    • tyingq 6y ago
      They didn't want it in court because it would have made a documented legal precedent around liability. "One former partner called the settlement hugely significant because it shatters the distance that McKinsey — which argues that it only makes recommendations — puts between its advice and its clients’ actions. For decades, the firm has avoided legal liability for high-profile failures of some clients, including the energy company Enron and Swissair, Switzerland’s defunct national airline." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/business/mckinsey-opioids-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/business/mckinsey-opioids...
      • asjldkfin 6y ago
        1. I think that’s making a guess into their intentions which we’re not qualified to do 2. Even if we take #1 for granted, the $500MM figure is still based on something. The counter-party could’ve settled for $100MM or insisted on $1B but they reached that number for a reason.