4 ms·

It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations because the corporations have more resources than the DOJ so it’s hard to win. In additi

It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations because the corporations have more resources than the DOJ so it’s hard to win. In addition a lot of DOJ leaders don’t want to harm their chances at getting a cushy job at one of these corporations.

dillondoyle 5y ago
DOJ did get at least $2 billion (their press release also says $8?) previously. I hope they intervene here and or follow up with criminal charges against the individual Sacklers as individuals.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations DoJ can't (except in special circumstances) legally stand in the place of harmed individuals and go after liable actors; because this a bankruptcy case DoJ is involved though, and opposes the settlement, as stated in the article.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-clout-has-an-inhibiting-impact-on-prosecutions/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-... I also remember reading a book about epo and J&J. There the situation also was that the government prosecutors were reluctant to touch the case because they knew J&J would outspend them with their lawyers. Then a private lawyer took on the case and after years reached a settlement but in the process was close to bankrupting his law firm.
  - ambicapter 5y ago
    How the hell do you outspend the federal government (Lemme guess, you lobby congress or curry favor with the executive to put limits on the amount of spending you can do on cases that look suspiciously like yours).
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > How the hell do you outspend the federal government? Veey easily if you are a big corp and its an existential threat; the DoJ has lots of funding, sure, but also lots of competing priorities.
    - spaetzleesser 5y ago
      Very simple. These agencies are underfunded. The IRS also can’t afford to do enough audits.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008 I am not disputing the existence of the general phenomenon, I am saying the facts of the immediate case (including those directly in the article) contradict the assertion that it is the factor responsible for the decision at issue in the case under discussion.

dillondoyle 5y ago

DOJ did get at least $2 billion (their press release also says $8?) previously. I hope they intervene here and or follow up with criminal charges against the individual Sacklers as individuals.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

> It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations DoJ can't (except in special circumstances) legally stand in the place of harmed individuals and go after liable actors; because this a bankruptcy case DoJ is involved though, and opposes the settlement, as stated in the article.

spaetzleesser 5y ago
Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-clout-has-an-inhibiting-impact-on-prosecutions/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-... I also remember reading a book about epo and J&J. There the situation also was that the government prosecutors were reluctant to touch the case because they knew J&J would outspend them with their lawyers. Then a private lawyer took on the case and after years reached a settlement but in the process was close to bankrupting his law firm.
- ambicapter 5y ago
  How the hell do you outspend the federal government (Lemme guess, you lobby congress or curry favor with the executive to put limits on the amount of spending you can do on cases that look suspiciously like yours).
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > How the hell do you outspend the federal government? Veey easily if you are a big corp and its an existential threat; the DoJ has lots of funding, sure, but also lots of competing priorities.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    Very simple. These agencies are underfunded. The IRS also can’t afford to do enough audits.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008 I am not disputing the existence of the general phenomenon, I am saying the facts of the immediate case (including those directly in the article) contradict the assertion that it is the factor responsible for the decision at issue in the case under discussion.