4 ms·

The lines you quote do not seem to actually say anything to support your claims or contradict those of the person you responded to?

• gruez 5y ago
  It supports the claim that it was a settlement, rather than the judge letting them off the hook unilaterally. As part of any settlement, each side agrees not to engage in further litigation on the same matter, otherwise there's no point in settling. I also omitted the next sentence which states what they gave in exchange for the settlement. >In return, they have agreed to pay roughly $4.3 billion, while also forfeiting ownership of Purdue Pharma.
  • mtalantikite 5y ago
    Didn't they move a lot of their assets abroad? [1] I mean sure, $4.3 billion is a lot of money, but personally I feel like they should all be left with zero and a few of them should be in prison for a long time. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-sackler-family-money/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-sackler-family-money...
  • smallerfish 5y ago
    If it's the same agreement John Oliver talked about last week, they have 10 years to pay the $4.3 billion, so they'll almost earn it all back in that period in interest.
  • alistairSH 5y ago
    * As part of any settlement, each side agrees not to engage in further litigation on the same matter* Individuals injured by the Sacklers are not party to the current case, but are now unable to sue. Or am I misreading?
    • dillondoyle 5y ago
      That's my read but IANAL. That's why some states are objecting