3 ms·

"[W]hat do you think is going on in all of these courtrooms right now? We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family? I think [the inves

"[W]hat do you think is going on in all of these courtrooms right now? We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family? I think [the investment banker’s] advice was just violated in a Virginia courtroom. My thought is to lever up where we can, and try to generate some additional income. We may well need it. . . . Even if we have to keep it in cash, it’s better to have the leverage now while we can get it than thinking it will be there for us when we get sued."[1] [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1329736/download#page=53 https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1329736/downl...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gruez 5y ago
If that's really the best quote the prosecution can come up with, I can see why the state settled. I suppose you can see this as the smoking gun, if you were already convinced of it, but from a skeptical reading it's really not that obvious. Are they talking about hiding money from creditors? Or just finding other ways of making money now that their previous money-maker (perdue pharma) is going under? Is the state going to convince the jury of that better than the defense?
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  > Are they talking about hiding money from creditors? Or just finding other ways of making money now that their previous money-maker (perdue pharma) is going under? The investment banker's advice was "the one thing you don’t want to do is to become poor". Purdue Pharma going under wouldn't make them poor. So it couldn't mean the latter. Sackler referred to the Virginia courtroom where Purdue Pharma's parent company admitted to fraud and agreed to pay $600 million. And "all of these courtrooms". Not to operating losses or any such thing. > Is the state going to convince the jury of that better than the defense? There's 1 way to find out.
nickff 5y ago
That is very strong evidence that they believed they would be sued; what else do you think it proves?
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  They stripped assets from the company so "it will be there for us when we get sued" and not distributed to people courts found the company injured.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

If that's really the best quote the prosecution can come up with, I can see why the state settled. I suppose you can see this as the smoking gun, if you were already convinced of it, but from a skeptical reading it's really not that obvious. Are they talking about hiding money from creditors? Or just finding other ways of making money now that their previous money-maker (perdue pharma) is going under? Is the state going to convince the jury of that better than the defense?

pseudalopex 5y ago
> Are they talking about hiding money from creditors? Or just finding other ways of making money now that their previous money-maker (perdue pharma) is going under? The investment banker's advice was "the one thing you don’t want to do is to become poor". Purdue Pharma going under wouldn't make them poor. So it couldn't mean the latter. Sackler referred to the Virginia courtroom where Purdue Pharma's parent company admitted to fraud and agreed to pay $600 million. And "all of these courtrooms". Not to operating losses or any such thing. > Is the state going to convince the jury of that better than the defense? There's 1 way to find out.

nickff 5y ago

That is very strong evidence that they believed they would be sued; what else do you think it proves?

pseudalopex 5y ago
They stripped assets from the company so "it will be there for us when we get sued" and not distributed to people courts found the company injured.