10 ms·
DOJ Seeks To Block Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Deal
- randycupertino 5y agoGiven the recent post and discussion on this post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28547864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28547864) yesterday regarding the FDA oversight of the opiate epidemic, found this article relevant and a small encouraging sign. The bankruptcy proceedings have been absurd in this case particularly due to the litigation shield for the Sacklers so a renegotiation would be huge. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-01/sackler-family-exits-bankruptcy-trial-over-purdue-pharma-s-oxycontin https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-01/sackler-f...
- nickff 5y agoDo you think the evidence supports piercing the corporate veil? I am not sure that it does, and think that if this deal is blocked, the Sacklers may not end up putting any private money in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#Un...
- alistairSH 5y agoLegally, I'm not sure. Morally, absolutely. The Sacklers cannot be allowed to walk away with billions AND immunity from future suits.
- nickff 5y agoI believe that the Justice Department is supposed to act in the legal realm, not the moral one.
- r00fus 5y agoThe concept of "justice" and "law" are based on morality.
- gruez 5y agoBased on, but not the same as. "these guys did a bad thing but technically didn't break any laws, let's punish them anyways" might be moral, but is against the rule of law.
- arcticbull 5y agoIt gets a little tricky here because in the US (and Canada) ex post facto laws are only forbidden in criminal matters. Laws may be applied retroactively in civil matters (Calder v. Bull). Further, at least in Canada, parliament can institute ex post facto laws by invoking the nothwithstanding clause. Always a little hairy politically, but legal and compatible with the rule of law. [edit] I would further argue that ex post facto laws in general are immoral.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- etchalon 5y agoI believe the DoJ should strive to find legal solutions to moral issues.
- abakker 5y agoMorals change, laws need to keep pace but should not anticipate changes in morals. Laws look backward at what was previously legal or illegal.
- yunohn 5y agoThe problem here is not about laws “failing to keep up” with morals. It’s legal structures being abused to get away with immoral activities. This isn’t the first or last such case where that’s happened.
- xxpor 5y agoWhich is why the Dept of Justice is part of the Executive branch, and the Attorney General is appointed by the elected president.
- spoonjim 5y agoThere are plenty of ways, strictly in the legal realm, where the Sacklers can go to jail. But I haven't seen any state try.
- alistairSH 5y agoDisagree. The JD is limited by the legal realm, but should strive for moral outcomes. In this case, is there a more moral solution that remains within the realm of legal? Perhaps not, but I'd like the JD to try, since the proposed solution strikes me as allowing the Sackler family to profit massively off immoral activities. IMO (as a layman, not a lawyer), I'm unclear on why a corporate bankruptcy settlement involves immunity for the Sacklers. If we are not allowed to pierce the corporate veil, it should go both ways. If they want to keep their fortunes, they should remain open to civil suits. Alternatively, they can forfeit the vast majority of their fortunes in return for immunity from future suits.
- randycupertino 5y agoThat's a really good question! I'm just a medical researcher who read Empire of Pain and I don't understand enough about bankruptcy law to give an informed opinion either way. However, I did hear a pretty amusing joke recently saying that Bankruptcy attorneys are the nephrologists of law, which means they're huge wonks & specialists in a very narrow section of their field. Interested to see other replies re: your comment!
- Glyptodon 5y agoI think if it doesn't it would suggest that there ought to be legislation creating a much lower standard for doing so.
- BrianOnHN 5y agoThey can keep their "earnings" as long as they can't spend it in jail. The precedence that we will not tolerate crimes as a path to unimaginable wealth is worth more than they could bankroll.
- nickff 5y agoI would assume that if they are found guilty of criminal negligence, fraud, or something else that would land them in jail, they would also likely lose a civil suit with a related cause of action.
- Scoundreller 5y agoYeah, a civil case is easy enough once the prosecutor has collected all of the evidence you need in the first place.
- ddoolin 5y agoHopefully prison, not jail, and they can spend it all they want on commissary. That little TV won't make you forget you're there, believe me. Just my opinion, but the only justice here is to take their wealth away. A prison sentence is pretty meaningless unless they're in for life, which of course we all know a few years is the more likely reality (and I'm not advocating for life either).
- BrianOnHN 5y agoI agree with you. However unlikely, I simply see a prison sentence as the most likely "real" punishment. The reason I say "real" is because even if we meant to take "all" of their wealth, what are the chances we actually get all of it? And without getting all of it, a seemingly negligible amount of cash, like 10MM which is <0.1% relative to >10,000MM, can still make the crime "worth it."
- barkingcat 5y agoWith money, their external representatives can purchase the jail/prison and thus turn the jail into a kind of holiday resort for the rich. It'd be like house arrest.
- stefan_ 5y agoAs usual, you can't make a criminal case if you don't use the tools we give prosecutors to make cases. Where are the home searches? The wiretaps? You can't just go "maybe discovery in this civil case will reveal the criminal conspiracy" and then go "eh, guess not".
- nickff 5y agoWhat kind of evidence are you expecting to be discovered? Teleconferences where they discuss intentionally killing people by causing overdoses? I am almost certain that the Sacklers thought they were producing drugs which would relieve pain and help end-users live happier and more productive lives. This may have been self-deception, but I don't have the knowledge to do a cost-benefit analysis of this situation (though I'd be interested to see one on opiods).
- elliekelly 5y agoPurdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. The question is whether and to what extent the family members, as individuals, might be criminally (or civilly) responsible.
- gruez 5y ago>Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. It's much easier to convict the corporation than its members.
- alistairSH 5y agoWhich is the root of the problem. The Sacklers get throw the company under the bus and walk away with billions in ill-gotten gains. A company shouldn’t be capable of committing crimes - there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things.
- 5y ago
- R0b0t1 5y agoRespect for the law is already dead, but I'm sure no personal responsibility in this case would make it worse.
- JohnWhigham 5y agoNothing will happen. Nothing ever does with the Chickenshit Club [0]. In my opinion the entire family should be publicly hanged for their egregious crimes. Something like that would at least be burned into other's minds and hopefully influence them for the better. At the very least, it'd be a brief moment of catharsis and reckoning for those who had problems struggling with opiate addictions. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute-Executives/dp/1501121367 https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute...
- dboreham 5y agoProbably because very large swathes of the economy ultimately depend on exploiting humans' poor impulse control.
- mandmandam 5y agoVery large and _very expendable_ swathes.
- imglorp 5y agoThe Purdue (et al) dosing schedule was engineered for maximal addiction similar to how cigarettes chemistry was. We used to dose these things on 4 hour intervals and the move to 12 hour was done for business reasons: neurology gets more addicted that way. must read: https://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1 https://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1
- sneak 5y agoCigarettes are still available without a prescription, and kill 7x as many people in the US each day/month/year as opiates. Tobacco is a large, legitimate, and continuing industry in the US. If you wish this to end, that may not be the comparison you wish to invoke.
- YinLuck- 5y agoThe Sacklers would all have received a bullet to the head had this saga unfolded in China.
- mesk 5y agoUS legal system is really fascinating. How can bankruptcy of one legal entity (Purdue Pharma) immunize other legal entities, that are not direct part of that bankruptcy deal (Sackler family members), from being sued (no matter if they are guilty or not). Very fascinating...
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoIt's not clear that it can immunize other legal entities. That's precisely what the dispute referenced in the source article is about - the Justice Department believes that it can't.
- gruez 5y agoThat's what a bankruptcy is? It "immunize" you against past liabilities.
- kelnos 5y agoI think the question the parent is asking is how should the bankruptcy of one entity (Purdue Pharma) be allowed to protect individual members of the Sackler family? The answer is, of course, that prosecutors have quite a bit of leeway in coming up with deals that will get the best outcome that they think they can get. But I agree that it doesn't feel right, that the Sacklers can further use their corporate structure to protect them from their actions.
- gruez 5y ago> I think the question the parent is asking is how should the bankruptcy of one entity (Purdue Pharma) be allowed to protect individual members of the Sackler family? I thought the settlement was between the government and the Sacklers directly? >Under a separate civil settlement, individual members of the Sackler family will pay the United States $225 million arising from the alleged conduct of Dr. Richard Sackler, David Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Dr. Kathe Sackler, and Jonathan Sackler (the Named Sacklers). https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-global-resolution-criminal-and-civil-investigations-opioid https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
- tims33 5y agoI hope the DoJ is successful. Taxpayers and families are bearing an incredible cost and toll from the damage they've done. It is also important that the government reflect on its on role in letting this get as bad as it did.
- sneak 5y agoIs the cost that incredible? Tobacco kills 7x as many people as opiates in the USA every day/week/month. Is the loss of human life from the sale (without a prescription!) of tobacco in the usa a credible figure?
- davesque 5y agoMaybe both are incredible?
- ddoolin 5y agoI think you make a good point that is worth talking about but also it seems unfair to compare the two, in that manner at least. Both are awful but the way that opiates kill and really destroy lives, relationships, families, etc. is really on a different time span and level.
- tims33 5y agoIt is a really fair question. I think there are two lenses. Tobacco does kill people in large numbers although it seems to largely cause issues at the end of their lives. Tobacco also reduces life expectancy, but not as much as opiod users. What I saw said a heavy smoker loses ~13 years and a heroin user ~18 years. Not sure about lighter smokers. The issue with oxycontin is it helped create a massive generation of addicts who have all sorts of other things associated with them like: rehab, homelessness, and crime. So I'm not sure of the total impact, but likely much higher per person.
- bigmattystyles 5y agoFrom everything I've heard, Purdue Pharma knew about the street abuse and at best did nothing, from their end, it probably drove up their sales too. People going through their legit Rx slightly faster because some of their pills were resold (yes, illegally) refilled sooner. Plus, let's not forget Purdue Pharma marketed these as not as addictive - which likely created and sustained the street markets. Also, just because something else (tobacco) is more deadly doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to everything to that is less deadly.
- javajosh 5y agoThat deal "avoids costly litigation", so say various "states' attorney generals". It's funny how those same AGs strong-arm the little people every single day, put them in jail before trial, and then offer them a choice: plead guilty, get time served, and go on your way. Or, plead not guilty, make bail, if you can, and get your ass handed to you because you can't afford a competent attorney and our judges and cops collude to make it impossible to get justice. If you can't make bail, then you will rot in jail until your first hearing, weeks from now, and you'll get an overworked public defender and get the same result. What do you choose? The Sacklers need that kind of choice. EDIT: The DoJ needs to confiscate their assets under current DEA assert forfeiture law, the same one the local cops use to steal from ordinary people without cause. Then arrest them. Let's see how long the litigation draws out under those circumstances.
- formerly_proven 5y agoThe Sacklers are going to the same special hell where Tobacco executives end up.
- azemetre 5y agoI don't want them to go to hell, I want them in prison.
- spoonjim 5y agoThe right prison is a good approximation of hell. Not federal prison, but state prisons certainly
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwaway81523 5y agoIs that the equivalent of a country club jail?
- vkou 5y agoWhich is what, exactly? A Miami Beach penthouse condo, with a 500-acre manor in Hawai'i for the winter months?
- spoonjim 5y agoAny idea why a state prosecutor hasn't tried to get a felony criminal charge on some of the Sacklers? At least tried to get them in jail? Seems like it would be low risk. If you succeeded you're a hero and if you failed nobody would be surprised.
- gruez 5y agoLack of evidence?
- spoonjim 5y agoHow do you know until you indict and do discovery?
- gruez 5y ago1. you need to evidence to convince a grand jury to indict them 2. discovery doesn't exist for criminal cases. you can't ask the accused to turn up relevant evidence. 3. they probably have all the relevant evidence, from the case against perdue pharma (the company) 4. the juicy evidence that proves their guilt is probably destroyed by now, or at least stored with a privileged party (eg. their laywers).
- wpietri 5y agoAnd either way, you end up a lifelong target of these specific billionaires. Plus any other billionaires who don't like the idea of accountability. Plus their minions, fellow travelers, and all the people who believe billionairehood is their true destiny.
- breck 5y ago"get an audience for our patent infringement suits so that we are feared as a tiger with claws, teeth and balls, and build some excitement with prescribers that OxyContin Tablets is the way to go." - Richard Sackler, 1996 email Patents create an awful incentive structure. In medicine, a deadly one.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- humaniania 5y agoCan they do anything about the judge who approved something so unfair? My understanding is that that judge has a history of allowing this type of thing.
- IMAYousaf 5y agoAs an aside, I've always had a problem with the phrase "Big Pharma". There seems to be this incorrect understanding that Pharma companies are anywhere close to the size of other mammoth companies from different industries.