3 ms·

> this is the first I've heard of that decision That's because it's not true. The deal was not stopped. It was only delayed, but I wouldn't place blame on pare

> this is the first I've heard of that decision That's because it's not true. The deal was not stopped. It was only delayed, but I wouldn't place blame on parent for getting this wrong; the media has done their best to imply otherwise.

lusus_naturae 3y ago
If you're just speculating, it's useless. If you have info, then please share.
- _delirium 3y ago
  The order is here, issued yesterday (August 10): https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/081023zr1_986b.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/081023zr1_98... The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and stayed the lower court order pending their own decision. What they agreed to hear: > The parties are directed to brief and argue the > following question: Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a > court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under > Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes > claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, > without the claimants’ consent. I think you can fairly describe this as the Supreme Court agreeing to scrutinize the Sackler bankruptcy deal, and it's possible they will end up throwing it out. But it's also possible they'll decide the opposite.
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    They've stopped the deal from going into effect, which is what I think what the previous poster meant. You're right that they haven't thrown out the deal, but they've prevented it from going forward without further scrutiny as the Sacklers and their lobbyist thralls would have wanted.
  - lusus_naturae 3y ago
    Right, I know. My issue is/was the certainty with which we assume one outcome or another. It creates unnecessary drama. I think it's fair to lobby for one outcome vs. another, but complaining on some msg board does not serve that purpose. The only purpose it serves is creating some illusion or perception of some guaranteed outcome (when there is no guarantee, only probabilities). So, if one is inclined one should give money to lobbyists or pacs that can bring about the desired outcome instead of lamenting uselessly.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Pretty trivial web search: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/supreme-court-purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/supreme-court-purdue-p...

lusus_naturae 3y ago

If you're just speculating, it's useless. If you have info, then please share.

_delirium 3y ago
The order is here, issued yesterday (August 10): https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/081023zr1_986b.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/081023zr1_98... The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and stayed the lower court order pending their own decision. What they agreed to hear: > The parties are directed to brief and argue the > following question: Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a > court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under > Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes > claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, > without the claimants’ consent. I think you can fairly describe this as the Supreme Court agreeing to scrutinize the Sackler bankruptcy deal, and it's possible they will end up throwing it out. But it's also possible they'll decide the opposite.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  They've stopped the deal from going into effect, which is what I think what the previous poster meant. You're right that they haven't thrown out the deal, but they've prevented it from going forward without further scrutiny as the Sacklers and their lobbyist thralls would have wanted.
- lusus_naturae 3y ago
  Right, I know. My issue is/was the certainty with which we assume one outcome or another. It creates unnecessary drama. I think it's fair to lobby for one outcome vs. another, but complaining on some msg board does not serve that purpose. The only purpose it serves is creating some illusion or perception of some guaranteed outcome (when there is no guarantee, only probabilities). So, if one is inclined one should give money to lobbyists or pacs that can bring about the desired outcome instead of lamenting uselessly.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Pretty trivial web search: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/supreme-court-purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/supreme-court-purdue-p...