7 ms·

Given the recent post and discussion on this post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28547864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28547864) yesterday regard

Given 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 ago
Do 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 ago
  Legally, I'm not sure. Morally, absolutely. The Sacklers cannot be allowed to walk away with billions AND immunity from future suits.
  - nickff 5y ago
    I believe that the Justice Department is supposed to act in the legal realm, not the moral one.
    - r00fus 5y ago
      The concept of "justice" and "law" are based on morality.
      - gruez 5y ago
        Based 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 ago
        It 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 ago
      I believe the DoJ should strive to find legal solutions to moral issues.
      - abakker 5y ago
        Morals 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        Which is why the Dept of Justice is part of the Executive branch, and the Attorney General is appointed by the elected president.
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      There 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 ago
      Disagree. 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 ago
  That'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 ago
  I think if it doesn't it would suggest that there ought to be legislation creating a much lower standard for doing so.
- BrianOnHN 5y ago
  They 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Yeah, a civil case is easy enough once the prosecutor has collected all of the evidence you need in the first place.
  - ddoolin 5y ago
    Hopefully 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 ago
      I 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 ago
    With 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 ago
  As 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 ago
    What 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 ago
      Purdue, 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 ago
        Which 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 ago
  Respect for the law is already dead, but I'm sure no personal responsibility in this case would make it worse.

nickff 5y ago

Do 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 ago
Legally, I'm not sure. Morally, absolutely. The Sacklers cannot be allowed to walk away with billions AND immunity from future suits.
- nickff 5y ago
  I believe that the Justice Department is supposed to act in the legal realm, not the moral one.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    The concept of "justice" and "law" are based on morality.
    - gruez 5y ago
      Based 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 ago
        It 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 ago
    I believe the DoJ should strive to find legal solutions to moral issues.
    - abakker 5y ago
      Morals 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        Which is why the Dept of Justice is part of the Executive branch, and the Attorney General is appointed by the elected president.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    There 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 ago
    Disagree. 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 ago
That'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 ago
I think if it doesn't it would suggest that there ought to be legislation creating a much lower standard for doing so.
BrianOnHN 5y ago
They 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Yeah, a civil case is easy enough once the prosecutor has collected all of the evidence you need in the first place.
- ddoolin 5y ago
  Hopefully 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 ago
    I 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 ago
  With 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 ago
As 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    Purdue, 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 ago
        Which 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 ago
Respect for the law is already dead, but I'm sure no personal responsibility in this case would make it worse.