5 ms·

Being 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

Being 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.

throwaway17_17 3y ago
This is not a new result, it is just the first time that a Court of Appeals had to actually say it out loud. Also, the point of bankruptcy is to yield the most possible value for the creditors, it is an integral component of the balancing test for confirmation of proposed settlement for resolution of the proceedings. I'm not a fan of the outcome or the process, but this is just a case of the law working as intended.
- zug_zug 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure if they were held with a life sentence that could be mitigated if they gave back 8 billion dollars that they'd get more money back.
1024core 3y ago
> 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 Bin Laden lived outside US jurisdiction too, but that didn't stop the US from going after him. The Sacklers have been responsible for way more than the 3000 deaths that OBL caused. > 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. Of course, these considerations don't come into effect when it's a, say, a poor Black guy caught for shoplifting $50 worth of goods; then it's "lets throw the book at him and lock him up for a dozen years!", even though locking someone up can cost upwards of $50K/year in places like California.
- orangepurple 3y ago
  The difference between you, me, the poor black guy caught for shoplifting $50 worth of goods, Bin Laden, and The Sacklers is their connections to the Israeli ruling parties and intelligence services. In turn, those services are affiliated with AIPAC. AIPAC in turn heavily influences American politics. https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501 https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/03... Steven Rosen, the former AIPAC official, illustrates AIPAC's power for the New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg by putting a napkin in front of him and saying, "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin." As Mearsheimer and Walt make clear, this is no idle boast, and they go on to say, "As will become clear, when issues relating to Israel come to the fore, Congress almost always votes to endorse the lobby's positions, usually in overwhelming numbers". They note AIPAC President Howard Friedman telling the organization's members in August 2006, "AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We ask each candidate to author a "position paper" on their views of the U.S.-Israel relationship - so it is clear where they stand on the subject." One congressional candidate (Harry Lonsdale) who went through this vetting process recounts that, "I found myself invited to AIPAC in Washington, D.C. fairly early in the campaign, for "discussions". It was an experience I will never forget. It wasn't enough that I was pro-Israel. I was given a list of vital topics and quizzed (read grilled) for my specific opinion on each. Actually I was told what my opinion must be, and exactly what words I was to use to express those opinions in public..... Shortly after that encounter at AIPAC, I was sent a list of American supporters of Israel..... that I was free to call for campaign contributions. I called, they gave, from Florida to Alaska." AIPAC also keeps track of congressional voting records and direct funds to opponents of congressmen who don't follow their line. Apart from Congress, Mearsheimer and Walt show successful Jewish activists in key government positions (particularly from the 1970's onwards), such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrahams, David Wurmser and Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the Clinton and Bush administrations. This political combination managed to steer George Bush, sideline Condoleeza Rice, and bully Colin Powell into the Iraq war . The authors show the enormous frustration of the CIA as their intelligence was distorted to support the lie of Iraqi WMD and start an unprovoked war that was not in the interests of the United States. A feeble Congress votes record aid budgets to Israel (currently four billion dollars a year), with loans being converted to grants, and quick acquiescences to Israeli demands that aid be paid up front (which means the U.S. has to borrow it to give to them), and to the Israeli refusal to account for how it was spent, both necessary conditions for other aid recipients. The whole process is supported by Jewish Think Tank activists such as Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin, and Joshua Muravchik at the American Enterprise Institute, and prominent journalists such as William Kristol, Michael Ladeen and Norman Podhoretz who are now agitating for America to declare war on Iran (and subsequently Syria and Saudi Arabia although they are not so open about this). In their conclusion, Mearsheimer and Walt ask what can be done about the outlandish failure of the American government to act in the interests of America. They doubt that the Israel Lobby will relinquish its power in the press, campaign finance or government, so they suggest pressure for more open discourse, which seems to be happening. It was initially impossible to publish this book in America but it did eventually see the light of day after an article in the London Review of Books and an unprcedented 275.000 downloads of the working paper on Harvard's Kennedy School of Government website. The authors see the (remote) possibility of congressmen treating Israel like any other country and they also show that the majority of American Jews aren't Likudniks and opposed the war in Iraq. They didn't like the AIPAC / Wolfowitz group but of course they lost out to the activists, so its not clear where all this goes, apart from generating some rumbling at the other end of the spectrum (for example, Robert Griffin's, "The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds" ). At present, Israel is greatly favoured while congress directs America to carry the massive cost of her wars in addition to generous transfers of aid.

throwaway17_17 3y ago

This is not a new result, it is just the first time that a Court of Appeals had to actually say it out loud. Also, the point of bankruptcy is to yield the most possible value for the creditors, it is an integral component of the balancing test for confirmation of proposed settlement for resolution of the proceedings. I'm not a fan of the outcome or the process, but this is just a case of the law working as intended.

zug_zug 3y ago
I'm pretty sure if they were held with a life sentence that could be mitigated if they gave back 8 billion dollars that they'd get more money back.

1024core 3y ago

> 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 Bin Laden lived outside US jurisdiction too, but that didn't stop the US from going after him. The Sacklers have been responsible for way more than the 3000 deaths that OBL caused. > 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. Of course, these considerations don't come into effect when it's a, say, a poor Black guy caught for shoplifting $50 worth of goods; then it's "lets throw the book at him and lock him up for a dozen years!", even though locking someone up can cost upwards of $50K/year in places like California.

orangepurple 3y ago
The difference between you, me, the poor black guy caught for shoplifting $50 worth of goods, Bin Laden, and The Sacklers is their connections to the Israeli ruling parties and intelligence services. In turn, those services are affiliated with AIPAC. AIPAC in turn heavily influences American politics. https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501 https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/03... Steven Rosen, the former AIPAC official, illustrates AIPAC's power for the New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg by putting a napkin in front of him and saying, "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin." As Mearsheimer and Walt make clear, this is no idle boast, and they go on to say, "As will become clear, when issues relating to Israel come to the fore, Congress almost always votes to endorse the lobby's positions, usually in overwhelming numbers". They note AIPAC President Howard Friedman telling the organization's members in August 2006, "AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We ask each candidate to author a "position paper" on their views of the U.S.-Israel relationship - so it is clear where they stand on the subject." One congressional candidate (Harry Lonsdale) who went through this vetting process recounts that, "I found myself invited to AIPAC in Washington, D.C. fairly early in the campaign, for "discussions". It was an experience I will never forget. It wasn't enough that I was pro-Israel. I was given a list of vital topics and quizzed (read grilled) for my specific opinion on each. Actually I was told what my opinion must be, and exactly what words I was to use to express those opinions in public..... Shortly after that encounter at AIPAC, I was sent a list of American supporters of Israel..... that I was free to call for campaign contributions. I called, they gave, from Florida to Alaska." AIPAC also keeps track of congressional voting records and direct funds to opponents of congressmen who don't follow their line. Apart from Congress, Mearsheimer and Walt show successful Jewish activists in key government positions (particularly from the 1970's onwards), such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrahams, David Wurmser and Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the Clinton and Bush administrations. This political combination managed to steer George Bush, sideline Condoleeza Rice, and bully Colin Powell into the Iraq war . The authors show the enormous frustration of the CIA as their intelligence was distorted to support the lie of Iraqi WMD and start an unprovoked war that was not in the interests of the United States. A feeble Congress votes record aid budgets to Israel (currently four billion dollars a year), with loans being converted to grants, and quick acquiescences to Israeli demands that aid be paid up front (which means the U.S. has to borrow it to give to them), and to the Israeli refusal to account for how it was spent, both necessary conditions for other aid recipients. The whole process is supported by Jewish Think Tank activists such as Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin, and Joshua Muravchik at the American Enterprise Institute, and prominent journalists such as William Kristol, Michael Ladeen and Norman Podhoretz who are now agitating for America to declare war on Iran (and subsequently Syria and Saudi Arabia although they are not so open about this). In their conclusion, Mearsheimer and Walt ask what can be done about the outlandish failure of the American government to act in the interests of America. They doubt that the Israel Lobby will relinquish its power in the press, campaign finance or government, so they suggest pressure for more open discourse, which seems to be happening. It was initially impossible to publish this book in America but it did eventually see the light of day after an article in the London Review of Books and an unprcedented 275.000 downloads of the working paper on Harvard's Kennedy School of Government website. The authors see the (remote) possibility of congressmen treating Israel like any other country and they also show that the majority of American Jews aren't Likudniks and opposed the war in Iraq. They didn't like the AIPAC / Wolfowitz group but of course they lost out to the activists, so its not clear where all this goes, apart from generating some rumbling at the other end of the spectrum (for example, Robert Griffin's, "The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds" ). At present, Israel is greatly favoured while congress directs America to carry the massive cost of her wars in addition to generous transfers of aid.