5 ms·

>Purdue pharma There was an attempt. Dems introduced a bill (the SACKLER Act) was that would stop the bankruptcy judge in the case from granting members of the

>Purdue pharma There was an attempt. Dems introduced a bill (the SACKLER Act) was that would stop the bankruptcy judge in the case from granting members of the Sackler family legal immunity during the bankruptcy proceedings, however it failed to gain support. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/544021-democrats-unveil-legislation-aimed-at-sackler-family-evading-lawsuits-through/ https://thehill.com/homenews/house/544021-democrats-unveil-l... https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2096?s=1&r=74 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2096...

rcme 3y ago
That bill was introduced 20 years too late.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rchaud 3y ago
  Any sooner and it would have been branded as anti-business. Same reason that crypto has had a run of 14 years with almost no regulation.
  - rcme 3y ago
    Crypto has existed for 14 years, but it has only become mainstream in the last 6 years. Binance, for instance, was founded in 2017. So 6 years from founding to crackdown. OxyContin was invented in 96. The effects were already terrible in the early 2000s. A bill in 21 is too little too late.
    - rchaud 3y ago
      If crypto became mainstream in 2017, how did Mt Gox even have 850k BTC to lose in 2014? Binance may be a new company, but US-based entities like Coinbase are not. They started in 2012, and they have to comply with US regs same as Binance.
      - rcme 3y ago
        850K BTC was about $250 million in 2014. Today it’s worth 25 billion. That should give you an idea of the scale difference.
        rchaud 3y ago
        Now if we could only isolate how much of that appreciation comes from unbacked stablecoins, which didn't exist until after the Mt Gox collapse.
credit_guy 3y ago
Can you educate me what the idea of the SACKLER act was? If the Sackler family committed a felony, then surely no type of bankruptcy (corporate or personal) can shield them from that, so that's not what the act is about. If not, then is it trying to pierce through the limited liability of a limited liability corporation? That sounds to me as potentially having huge implications. Did the Democrats really want that? Or did they just want to score some political points, and secretly did not intend to act to pass?
- Guvante 3y ago
  Have you read into that situation? The Sackler family got the bankruptcy judge to give them and all of their companies personal immunity from a situation because the corporation was going bankrupt. Why can a bankruptcy proceeding for one entity shield another entity from being sued? If that entity was protected by an LLC shield such protection wouldn't be needed by the bankruptcy court. This isn't about piercing the viel or about avoiding bankruptcy. This is about bankruptcy of one entity somehow protecting theoretically unrelated entities. After all as you mentioned they should be shielded by the viel already, why give them explicit immunity?

rcme 3y ago

That bill was introduced 20 years too late.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rchaud 3y ago
Any sooner and it would have been branded as anti-business. Same reason that crypto has had a run of 14 years with almost no regulation.
- rcme 3y ago
  Crypto has existed for 14 years, but it has only become mainstream in the last 6 years. Binance, for instance, was founded in 2017. So 6 years from founding to crackdown. OxyContin was invented in 96. The effects were already terrible in the early 2000s. A bill in 21 is too little too late.
  - rchaud 3y ago
    If crypto became mainstream in 2017, how did Mt Gox even have 850k BTC to lose in 2014? Binance may be a new company, but US-based entities like Coinbase are not. They started in 2012, and they have to comply with US regs same as Binance.
    - rcme 3y ago
      850K BTC was about $250 million in 2014. Today it’s worth 25 billion. That should give you an idea of the scale difference.
      - rchaud 3y ago
        Now if we could only isolate how much of that appreciation comes from unbacked stablecoins, which didn't exist until after the Mt Gox collapse.

credit_guy 3y ago

Can you educate me what the idea of the SACKLER act was? If the Sackler family committed a felony, then surely no type of bankruptcy (corporate or personal) can shield them from that, so that's not what the act is about. If not, then is it trying to pierce through the limited liability of a limited liability corporation? That sounds to me as potentially having huge implications. Did the Democrats really want that? Or did they just want to score some political points, and secretly did not intend to act to pass?

Guvante 3y ago
Have you read into that situation? The Sackler family got the bankruptcy judge to give them and all of their companies personal immunity from a situation because the corporation was going bankrupt. Why can a bankruptcy proceeding for one entity shield another entity from being sued? If that entity was protected by an LLC shield such protection wouldn't be needed by the bankruptcy court. This isn't about piercing the viel or about avoiding bankruptcy. This is about bankruptcy of one entity somehow protecting theoretically unrelated entities. After all as you mentioned they should be shielded by the viel already, why give them explicit immunity?