5 ms·

>>As part of the settlement, McKinsey admits to no wrongdoing. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/04/963864747/consulting-giant-mckinsey-to-settle-opioid-claims-for-57

>>As part of the settlement, McKinsey admits to no wrongdoing. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/04/963864747/consulting-giant-mckinsey-to-settle-opioid-claims-for-573-million https://www.npr.org/2021/02/04/963864747/consulting-giant-mc...

ashtonkem 6y ago
That’s incredibly normal. It’s a regularly negotiated term that’s used to shield the wrongdoer from continued civil liability. Frankly, I think it’s such transparent bullshit that we should abolish it. Really, you admit to no wrong doing but you’re willing to fork over half a billion because ...?
- phrz 6y ago
  If you're going to be made to pay out and concede liability, why not simply go to trial and suffer the same legal fate? It's not there as a mere legalese recitation or to shield the defendant's ego. To finish your rhetorical question, the reason you pay out but admit no wrongdoing is in recognition of the risk of financial liability stemming from the litigation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - vkou 6y ago
    > why not simply go to trial and suffer the same legal fate? The same reason most people take a plea bargain. Punitive damages. "Prison for six months, or the risk of a jury sending you to prison for ten years" is a pretty strong incentive to plead guilty. If the punitive damages can be expected to be 10-20x of what you'd settle for, you'd probably just take the plea.
    - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
      Yeah, but innocent people have to take pleas all the time because of it.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I want them to go to trial. I think it’s incredibly unseemly that we as a society bring down the hammer on individual drug dealers, but let corporate ones wash the blood off their hands with shareholder money. Each one of these people deserves a pair of steel bracelets and their day in court in front of a jury of their peers.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      I think McKenzie would be found innocent in a court of law. This is a settlement because they don’t want to be dragged through the mud in PR. They provided advice, the company chose to act on it. Unless their Advice Misslead regarding the legal risk, they are in the clear. If it was misleading, the damages would be to Purdue.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        I’m no lawyer, but providing advice to a client who then goes ahead and breaks the law with said advice sure sounds like it meets the federal charge of conspiracy.
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        That really depends on the the advice is. I don't see a big problem with "This would make you a bunch of money, but you should have your lawyers look at it" or "this will make you a bunch of money, but has a high legal risk". If the advice is: "this is illegal, and here is how to avoid getting caught" then I could see that being a crime.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        You are adding requirements and escape clauses to the federal charge of conspiracy that are not actually in the law. Here is the relevant text of 18 U.S. Code § 371: > If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The question, fundamentally, is whether or not what McKinsey did counts as to "effect the object of the conspiracy". If yes, there is no magic "go talk to your lawyer" phrase to escape criminal liability, for the same reason why you can't bring a lawyer with you and depend on attorney client confidentiality to protect you from search warrants and prosecution.
mumblemumble 6y ago
That's a pretty standard part of settlements, and very nearly semantically void. The more salient facts for someone who's looking to this as an instructive story are: they advised a company to do some things that had some pretty hefty consequences, those consequences came back to bite them, and it cost them $573M plus legal fees and damaged reputation. $573M is $573M, regardless of whether a court orders you to pay it, or whether it's the amount you're paying to avoid having to find out how much the court would order you to pay. The fact that no ruling went onto the books is small consolation.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  That if anybody sues you for the same thing you've already been investigated and fined for, they had better have enough money to relitigate the entire thing is more than a small consolation, it's a public subsidy.
josho 6y ago
We should do away with settling out of court without a statement of who is at fault. The court could reject the settlement if the core issue of the case is not addressed. By way of analogy this is why it’s a needed change. Applying settlements to criminal law I could murder you, and settle the case for some dollar amount and not have to admit guilt. In short settling out of court is a way for the wealthy to avoid meaningful penalties.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I don’t think it was a criminal case but a civil one. The plaintiff can drop it if they want.

ashtonkem 6y ago

That’s incredibly normal. It’s a regularly negotiated term that’s used to shield the wrongdoer from continued civil liability. Frankly, I think it’s such transparent bullshit that we should abolish it. Really, you admit to no wrong doing but you’re willing to fork over half a billion because ...?

phrz 6y ago
If you're going to be made to pay out and concede liability, why not simply go to trial and suffer the same legal fate? It's not there as a mere legalese recitation or to shield the defendant's ego. To finish your rhetorical question, the reason you pay out but admit no wrongdoing is in recognition of the risk of financial liability stemming from the litigation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vkou 6y ago
  > why not simply go to trial and suffer the same legal fate? The same reason most people take a plea bargain. Punitive damages. "Prison for six months, or the risk of a jury sending you to prison for ten years" is a pretty strong incentive to plead guilty. If the punitive damages can be expected to be 10-20x of what you'd settle for, you'd probably just take the plea.
  - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
    Yeah, but innocent people have to take pleas all the time because of it.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I want them to go to trial. I think it’s incredibly unseemly that we as a society bring down the hammer on individual drug dealers, but let corporate ones wash the blood off their hands with shareholder money. Each one of these people deserves a pair of steel bracelets and their day in court in front of a jury of their peers.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I think McKenzie would be found innocent in a court of law. This is a settlement because they don’t want to be dragged through the mud in PR. They provided advice, the company chose to act on it. Unless their Advice Misslead regarding the legal risk, they are in the clear. If it was misleading, the damages would be to Purdue.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      I’m no lawyer, but providing advice to a client who then goes ahead and breaks the law with said advice sure sounds like it meets the federal charge of conspiracy.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        That really depends on the the advice is. I don't see a big problem with "This would make you a bunch of money, but you should have your lawyers look at it" or "this will make you a bunch of money, but has a high legal risk". If the advice is: "this is illegal, and here is how to avoid getting caught" then I could see that being a crime.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        You are adding requirements and escape clauses to the federal charge of conspiracy that are not actually in the law. Here is the relevant text of 18 U.S. Code § 371: > If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The question, fundamentally, is whether or not what McKinsey did counts as to "effect the object of the conspiracy". If yes, there is no magic "go talk to your lawyer" phrase to escape criminal liability, for the same reason why you can't bring a lawyer with you and depend on attorney client confidentiality to protect you from search warrants and prosecution.

mumblemumble 6y ago

That's a pretty standard part of settlements, and very nearly semantically void. The more salient facts for someone who's looking to this as an instructive story are: they advised a company to do some things that had some pretty hefty consequences, those consequences came back to bite them, and it cost them $573M plus legal fees and damaged reputation. $573M is $573M, regardless of whether a court orders you to pay it, or whether it's the amount you're paying to avoid having to find out how much the court would order you to pay. The fact that no ruling went onto the books is small consolation.

pessimizer 6y ago
That if anybody sues you for the same thing you've already been investigated and fined for, they had better have enough money to relitigate the entire thing is more than a small consolation, it's a public subsidy.

josho 6y ago

We should do away with settling out of court without a statement of who is at fault. The court could reject the settlement if the core issue of the case is not addressed. By way of analogy this is why it’s a needed change. Applying settlements to criminal law I could murder you, and settle the case for some dollar amount and not have to admit guilt. In short settling out of court is a way for the wealthy to avoid meaningful penalties.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I don’t think it was a criminal case but a civil one. The plaintiff can drop it if they want.