12 ms·
Purdue Pharma can protect Sackler owners in opioid bankruptcy, court rules
- boeingUH60 3y agoIf only El Chapo and his cohorts were smart enough to sell drugs the legal way and get away with it...
- wmf 3y agoMexican cartels have started inserting themselves into legal businesses like farming within their territory, increasing prices and taking the resulting profits.
- kevviiinn 3y agoWhat does that have to do with the statement of the OP?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoPurdue manufactured opioids in measured doses without unsafe adulterants. Guess what? Junkies lived. Turns out that when they get a clean high manufactured by competent pharmaceutical engineers, they tend not to be found catatonic by callous law enforcement who say "fuck it" and refuse to save their lives with the naloxone they have with them. When did junkies start dying? With the supply of oxy dried up because the DEA shut down pill mills, they had no other options than dirty street heroin that it turns out is mostly just fentanyl and carfentanyl. I have no clue how this is considered an improvement by the media that reports on such things, or why so many are so eager to buy it. If El Chapo started selling clean/safe drugs that didn't kill people, how the fuck would he be anything other than a goddamned hero? How many are dying of overdoses every week again?
- bb88 3y agoWhen a company pursues to market an addictive drug, and knowingly sells it to counties that had 5 to 10 times more opioid prescriptions than people, that's illegal and that should be stopped. Knowing this and allowing them to do it anyway would be a dystopia I want no part of.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago> that's illegal and that should be stopped. It should be legalized. Death-by-opiate/opioid-overdose shrank while they were selling this. Shutting down the pill mills killed people. Like, more people are dying now than otherwise would. And you're ok with that? I guess when the DEA makes up bullshit, you're just happy to parrot it. > Knowing this and allowing them to do it anyway would be a dystopia I want no part of. You're in the dystopia now. You're just insulated from it. Something close to 100,000 people will this year because they're using dirty street drugs and fucking elephant tranquilizer instead of Purdue's safe drugs. WTF. I wish I got to live in a world where evil was committed by supervillains doing it deliberately, rather than this clownworld where people do it and think they're the good guys. You should be ashamed of yourself. Go do some fucking self-reflection.
- kevviiinn 3y agoYou're absolutely correct, prohibition is what is actually causing all of the overdose deaths. If we had a legal and regulated system of drugs then the supply would be high quality and consistent and people would know exactly what they were getting
- rgbgraph 3y agoJust because you feel a certain way, doesn't mean you should act on it -- you're bound to make a less-than-optimal decision when emotions get in the way. The above is the equivalent of finding out your child has been an alcoholic for the past decade, and abruptly shutting down all liquor stores in your town. Your child is going to start having seizures, and your town will be incredibly irritated at you for being so hasty.
- refurb 3y agoWell, if El Chapo got FDA approval of their drugs and promoted them in line with US laws, then yeah, they'd probably get away with it.
- droopyEyelids 3y agoAnd here rests another piece of the legitimacy of our government. From time to time you see the latest Corruption Perception Index scores come out [1] and the USA always ranks among the least corrupt countries. That's due to the difficulties in defining corruption. Here in the USA I think there is very little illegal corruption that happens. Very few people avoid a speeding ticket by greasing the palm of a police officer. Instead we have stuff like this, where a powerful family, aided by the most prestigious management consultants [2] kill and addict millions of citizens, but they took steps to ensure the law accommodated their evil, and protected them afterwards. It's not technically corruption because they worked within the system to pass their laws and peddle their dope. So then it's not just local police, or a local government, or even one administration that people see is corrupt and working against us, but the entire system of government, 'by the people, for the people' has somehow been perverted, and turned into a sham. And then these same villains see how the people have no mechanism to fight back, they see all we can do is roll over and take it, and it inspires them to think about what they can get away with next. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index [2] https://hub.jhu.edu/2022/06/30/mckinsey-opioid-documents-archive/ https://hub.jhu.edu/2022/06/30/mckinsey-opioid-documents-arc...
- TimPC 3y agoIn all honesty while they rank the US as low on a corruption-scale globally they do capture a fair amount of the corruption in the US. The US has similar scores to Bhutan and Seychelles not Denmark and Canada. As for the case itself, it seems the court wants to protect the settlement because they know it's unlikely they will be able to pierce the veil of corporate protection and go after the owner's for the $5.5-$6 billion that is only voluntarily contributed if the settlement works. In considering the greater good I think the win of $5.5-$6 billion in additional settlement money for victims is a greater good than the restrictions on potential lawsuits against the Sacklers is an evil. Ideally any victims who had their rights restricted by this clause would have an option to be a late joiner of the settlement and could ensure compensation that way.
- john005 3y ago[flagged]
- john006 3y ago[flagged]
- ethbr0 3y agoWe can't have judicial activism only when it pleases us. Either laws are applied in the way they are written... or what are they for? The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals finds that the Bankruptcy Code, as currently written, allows for this action. That the Sackler family is a bunch of profiteering, morally-bankrupt assholes is immaterial. If we feel this is an unjust outcome, change starts with Congress passing laws that alter the Bankruptcy Code.
- beerpls 3y ago[flagged]
- ethbr0 3y agoI say this in the most respectful way, but apathy and internet-complaining do not change make. By what method do you suggest bankruptcy is changed?
- beerpls 3y agoSo when the mega wealthy control the laws and politicians and then you come to me asking how we should get the laws and politicians so what we want, what do you expect me to say? I’m not suggesting anything about bankruptcy. I’m saying it’s foolish to think voting will make this right
- ethbr0 3y agoSo what will make this right? It's clear what you're against -- what are you for?
- majormajor 3y ago"Voting" is certainly not a standalone answer to "how to get Congress to change laws." As you say, it's not gonna be easy to change politicians' minds... so doing nothing certainly won't do it. You can pick defeatism or you can get creative. Step 1 in the US as it is is probably "find your own connected people with access to money and work on getting them involved." It takes a long time, but I'd start with studying the anti-abortion movement, the environment or climate ones, or the ones around sexuality. Those are all fields where the laws of the land have moved.
- UKR_anon 3y ago[flagged]
- ethbr0 3y agoNo, you're down voted for posting with an anonymous account, preemptively complaining about being down voted, and not adding anything interesting to the discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. >> Avoid flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. >> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity. >> Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead. >> Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to. >> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
- bombcar 3y agoAs an aside, those with large net worths should consider bankruptcy planning. It's not really "fun" but nobody intends to go bankrupt, and states vary widely in what is excluded, especially in the homestead exemption. For example, Florida, DC, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas have unlimited (of various flavors, for example Texas is 100/200 acres rural (single/family) or 1 acre urban). Most require something like 40 months living, but consult an advisor.
- dylan604 3y agoThis seems like an actual bit of planning for the wealthy done not by themselves but their advisors. Some people might be down voting for it being cynical, but you know that those that have money have paid people to consider every possible angle at how to not only protect their money but turn a profit in situations that would otherwise devastate an average person.
- bombcar 3y agoThe very wealthy certainly use it (the most famous case being OJ Simpson) but even if you're not 1% wealthy, but have assets, you should at least consider it. Especially if you're looking to move anyway, it could be a factor. > Annual bankruptcy filings in calendar year 2022 totaled 387,721, compared with 413,616 cases in 2021, according to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
- dylan604 3y agoThere are all sorts of techniques/tricks/hacks (depending on your style) of using the system that does not require 1% kind of income. Sort of that line from The Firm, "I want to bend the law as far as I can without breaking it." You can form a corp and place all of your assets in it, then have your employer hire the corp and not you so you earn no income. You don't own a house, but your corp does and allows you to stay there. Stuff that sounds shady AF, but is legal but might require you to spend a few hours going over paperwork with members of the gov't from time to time edit: removing the repeated comments
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoIs there a credible criminal complaint against the Sacklers? Not “we don’t like them” allegations, but specific and credible allegations of criminality?
- johndhi 3y agoOpinions vary widely. There are credible criminal claims for stuff like "conspiracy to influence the FDA to ignore contrary evidence" that you could call either criminal or standard business practice depending on how on-fire your hair is.
- shrubble 3y agoMis-labeling of a drug and withholding relevant information about an approved drug from the FDA (I think it is called 'surveillance') would be two things to examine I would think...
- uoaei 3y agoThere are very real costs to the national economy that result from killing, harming, or incapacitating millions of otherwise-capable working-age folks by knowingly getting them addicted to opioids and building the business infrastructure to expand that influence as wide as possible. Surely there is a law that can be interpreted to compensate for the effects that this campaign has wrought on society.
- recursivedoubts 3y ago> There are very real costs to the national economy that result from killing, harming, or incapacitating millions of otherwise-capable working-age folks and then there's the killing, harming, or incapacitating millions of folks, on top of that!
- uoaei 3y agoYes I was only appealing to the legalistic interpretation. The larger story is that such evil is banal-ified when we stick to arguing only for legal interpretations of their choices and actions. Eichmann in Jerusalem helps cast light on what people mean when they talk about things like systemic harms.
- nneonneo 3y agoBeing unaware of some of the details of this saga, I'm floored to read the following: pg. 17 > Starting in 2007, the Sacklers anticipated that the effects of litigation against Purdue would eventually impact them directly. See, e.g., Deferred Joint App’x at 5059 (David Sackler emailed Jonathan and Richard Sackler, “We will be sued . . . . [A]sk yourself how long it will take these lawyers to figure out that we might settle with them if they can freeze our assets and threaten us.”). From 2008 to 2016, Purdue distributed a significant proportion of the company’s revenue—an approximated $11 billion in total—to Sackler family trusts and holding companies. This represented an increase in the distribution pattern from years prior and “drained Purdue’s total assets by 75% and Purdue’s ‘solvency cushion’ by 82%” during that same time period. pg. 25 > In applying the Iridium factors, the bankruptcy court observed that, in this case, counsel on both sides were experienced and formidable. Id. at 86–87. Over 95% of the voters approved the Plan, showing clear creditor support, and the potential difficulty in collecting from the Sacklers and their related entities on any successfully litigated claims was an issue of “significant concern.” Id. at 89. The court noted that while the Sacklers are worth approximately $11 billion, they are a large family whose assets are “widely scattered and primarily held” in spendthrift trusts—both offshore and in the United States—that are largely unreachable via bankruptcy proceedings.9 Id. at 88. Moreover, certain members of the Sackler family live “outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and might not have subjected themselves sufficiently to the U.S.” such that a U.S. court would have personal jurisdiction over them. Id. And, perhaps most importantly, according to the court, continued litigation—even if it were limited to the claims at issue—would be extremely expensive and lead to delays. Id. at 89– 90. Thus, the court reasoned, an order against confirmation would not only destroy the entire settlement but would also result in a major escalation of costs and time. The argument the bankruptcy court made - and which this decision upholds - appears to boil down to "they've been so successful at squirreling away the $11bn they took out of the company that we probably can't get it back, so we shouldn't try; letting them get away with it yields more for creditors". Yikes. I guess this makes it legal to do the following: - Start a company, do something really bad, and make a lot of money. - Before you get sued, take the money out and hide it in offshore accounts. - Get sued, declare bankruptcy, and return a small fraction of the money as "goodwill" in exchange for a release of claims. And, oh, have really good lawyers so that the court calls your counsel "experienced and formidable", enough to make coming after you too expensive to even consider.
- recursivedoubts 3y agoit's a big club and you ain't in it
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sitkack 3y agoHow does a legal shield from creditors also apply when you commit a crime? Or are crimes just financial debts?
- zug_zug 3y agoThey should be held criminally liable as individuals since it's in writing that they knew what they were doing was malfeasant.
- footlose_3815 3y agoThese people indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and impacted millions more, creating a drug epidemic. Our elected representatives, especially the GOP want to let them run free. It's sick thinking they still breathe free air after poisoning a generation for profit. No lessons were learned.