7 ms·

> WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blew up the massive bankruptcy reorganization of opioid maker Purdue Pharma, finding that the settlement inappropri

> WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blew up the massive bankruptcy reorganization of opioid maker Purdue Pharma, finding that the settlement inappropriately included legal protections for the Sackler family, meaning that billions of dollars secured for victims is now threatened. Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims?

wtallis 2y ago
"is now threatened" is not characterizing this as a loss for the victims. It's characterizing this as opening up the possibility of a loss for the victims, relative to what had been settled. That characterization seems accurate and relevant. (This ruling also brings a certainty of delay for compensation, since negotiations for a settlement have to start anew, and with lower chances of success.)
ahartmetz 2y ago
> Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims? Pay attention to the ads appearing on NBC, I guess... (cf. Manufacturing Consent)
adastra22 2y ago
Well, it is. The victims had a settlement agreement worth billions of dollars, which the Sackler family was going to willingly provide in exchange for legal protections. Now that legal protections are off the table, it is very unlikely that any new settlement will be as generous, and in fact quite unlikely that any settlement will be achieved at all.
- qarl 2y ago
  But also very likely that the case will go to court and the damages will be substantially higher.
  - micromacrofoot 2y ago
    Not really, it will be played out in a number of separate cases and each case is in a weaker position separately simply due to scale and resources. The Sacklers have an estimated $1bn liquid available to fight these things. The $6bn ruling was significant and not an amazing outcome for either side (so, a compromise). Additionally most of the Sacklers are well into old age, so they'll probably die before losing $6bn.
    - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
      > The $6bn ruling was significant and not an amazing outcome for either side (so, a compromise). I find this framing extremely bizarre. A $6bn ruling means the family profits $5 BILLION. In no universe is that not an amazing outcome for them.
      - micromacrofoot 2y ago
        It's a loss of ~1/2 of their net worth. That's significant. They are now likely to pay much less by settling smaller individual cases, which will take significantly longer and cost claimants significantly more to pursue. When they die (which will be soon, most of them are 75+) it'll become even more difficult to get anything. The deal that was overruled was certainly not justice, but reality will likely be worse. There's no outcome that will render them not billionaires within their lifetimes.
        qarl 2y ago
        > They are now likely to pay much less... So then why did they choose to settle? That makes no sense. The only reason a defendant settles is to minimize potential losses.
        micromacrofoot 2y ago
        predictably of asset distribution, the end of a long campaign of bad pr, and government pressure (which is now fairly deflated) the settlement was also in the interest of the government, which may now end up with tens of thousands of separate suits to manage and $6bn less to help manage the crisis unfolding in the meantime don't get me wrong, the sacklers could end up worse off... but it's a big if and will take much much longer
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Even if that's the result (which is questionable), the Sacklers are almost all overseas and their assets are "hidden" in complex schemes. So, collection is as big a hurdle as coming to a reasonable judgement.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    Victory is not guaranteed, and even if the victims do win, going to court takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money. The victims agreed to the settlement because they preferred that option to going to court.
    - qarl 2y ago
      OK - but the individual payouts are going to be small and do little to compensate for the harm caused. The primary goal for the suit is to punish the wrongdoing and disincentivize similar future behavior by others. Higher costs and uncertainty does that.
      - adastra22 2y ago
        In your opinion. I think those owed restitution would feel differently about the primary purpose.
        qarl 2y ago
        Yeah. I looked up the settlement - it amounts to tens of thousands of dollars per individual. I can see how that would be important to many people.
        adastra22 2y ago
        And to people whose lives were wrecked by addiction. Tens of thousands of dollars would be a welcome windfall to people on HN, but to these families it could even be life changing amounts of money. Sucks that their payout is now delayed indefinitely.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims? As the dissent notes, this decision means the victims won’t get money now. When is an open question, as well as whether it will be similar, more or less after litigation costs, and to whom it will be paid. What is certain is the Sacklers will be hurt more. (Unless a couple bizarre legal maneuvres pay off, e.g. the Sacklers extinguishing liability by way of a 2004 indemnification agreement.) So in a sense, this is deterrence and retribution winning over restitution [1]. [1] https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose...
- legitster 2y ago
  > What is certain is the Sacklers will be hurt more. Maybe? They get all of the billions back and now have time and a reason to start building a defense.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > get all of the billions back They never gave up any cash to my knowledge. The plan was a promise. We can conclude the Sacklers are worse off right now given they (and the creditors) accepted the deal. They may be materially better off in the future. But the rest of their lives will be about this.
    - legitster 2y ago
      ??? The Supreme court case was specifically about the $6 billion dollars the Sacklers committed to the bankruptcy fund. And this ruling says they are not allowed to contribute to it.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Supreme court case was specifically about the $6 billion dollars the Sacklers committed to the bankruptcy fund Committed, not contributed.
dragonwriter 2y ago
No, if it wasn't a better realization of the victims’s goals than going to trial, why would the victims have accepted it? Its absolutely a loss for the victims. Not just them, but they are among those losing.
bradford 2y ago
> Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims? I can see it going both ways, yes: this means that 6 billion dollars are not immediately available for compensation. On the other hand, certain states (Washington was one, if I recall) argued that 6 billion dollars was such a pitifully small amount (relative to the damage done) that they declined to accept compensation in hopes that future lawsuits would yield more. I view this decision as rejecting the immediate compensation, but opening up possibility for greater compensation in the future (with obvious risks and delays).
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > certain states (Washington was one, if I recall) argued that 6 billion dollars was such a pitifully small amount (relative to the damage done) that they declined to accept compensation As the dissent notes, “all 50 state Attorneys General have signed on to this plan.” The holdouts were “a small group of Canadian creditors and one lone individual.” I always thought of the Sackler carve-out as a scam. But the dissent gives me pause. This ruling trades restitution for retribution. In all likelihood, many classes of victims—such as small victims, small states and local governments—won’t see a penny, at least for years.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    > This ruling trades restitution for retribution IMO the money is a pittance, sounds like a lot but it's just a fraction of what the federal government spends on any given day. We can afford to carve out the financial resources to help victims. The retribution is totally worth it, because it needs to be understood that behavior like this will get punished. It should be painful, not just the cost of doing business.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      I agree, but absent John Stewart taking it up [1] were not paying out the victims, and I’m not a victim, so it’s easy to discount their desire for the $3,500 to $48k. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/jon-stewart-9-11-congress.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/jon-stewart-9-11...
tadhgpearson 2y ago
Well, not a loss for the legal profession for sure :D Will the victims come out with more in their pockets than they would have from this settlement? I guess we'll find out...

wtallis 2y ago

"is now threatened" is not characterizing this as a loss for the victims. It's characterizing this as opening up the possibility of a loss for the victims, relative to what had been settled. That characterization seems accurate and relevant. (This ruling also brings a certainty of delay for compensation, since negotiations for a settlement have to start anew, and with lower chances of success.)

ahartmetz 2y ago

> Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims? Pay attention to the ads appearing on NBC, I guess... (cf. Manufacturing Consent)

adastra22 2y ago

Well, it is. The victims had a settlement agreement worth billions of dollars, which the Sackler family was going to willingly provide in exchange for legal protections. Now that legal protections are off the table, it is very unlikely that any new settlement will be as generous, and in fact quite unlikely that any settlement will be achieved at all.

qarl 2y ago
But also very likely that the case will go to court and the damages will be substantially higher.
- micromacrofoot 2y ago
  Not really, it will be played out in a number of separate cases and each case is in a weaker position separately simply due to scale and resources. The Sacklers have an estimated $1bn liquid available to fight these things. The $6bn ruling was significant and not an amazing outcome for either side (so, a compromise). Additionally most of the Sacklers are well into old age, so they'll probably die before losing $6bn.
  - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    > The $6bn ruling was significant and not an amazing outcome for either side (so, a compromise). I find this framing extremely bizarre. A $6bn ruling means the family profits $5 BILLION. In no universe is that not an amazing outcome for them.
    - micromacrofoot 2y ago
      It's a loss of ~1/2 of their net worth. That's significant. They are now likely to pay much less by settling smaller individual cases, which will take significantly longer and cost claimants significantly more to pursue. When they die (which will be soon, most of them are 75+) it'll become even more difficult to get anything. The deal that was overruled was certainly not justice, but reality will likely be worse. There's no outcome that will render them not billionaires within their lifetimes.
      - qarl 2y ago
        > They are now likely to pay much less... So then why did they choose to settle? That makes no sense. The only reason a defendant settles is to minimize potential losses.
        micromacrofoot 2y ago
        predictably of asset distribution, the end of a long campaign of bad pr, and government pressure (which is now fairly deflated) the settlement was also in the interest of the government, which may now end up with tens of thousands of separate suits to manage and $6bn less to help manage the crisis unfolding in the meantime don't get me wrong, the sacklers could end up worse off... but it's a big if and will take much much longer
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Even if that's the result (which is questionable), the Sacklers are almost all overseas and their assets are "hidden" in complex schemes. So, collection is as big a hurdle as coming to a reasonable judgement.
- jjk166 2y ago
  Victory is not guaranteed, and even if the victims do win, going to court takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money. The victims agreed to the settlement because they preferred that option to going to court.
  - qarl 2y ago
    OK - but the individual payouts are going to be small and do little to compensate for the harm caused. The primary goal for the suit is to punish the wrongdoing and disincentivize similar future behavior by others. Higher costs and uncertainty does that.
    - adastra22 2y ago
      In your opinion. I think those owed restitution would feel differently about the primary purpose.
      - qarl 2y ago
        Yeah. I looked up the settlement - it amounts to tens of thousands of dollars per individual. I can see how that would be important to many people.
        adastra22 2y ago
        And to people whose lives were wrecked by addiction. Tens of thousands of dollars would be a welcome windfall to people on HN, but to these families it could even be life changing amounts of money. Sucks that their payout is now delayed indefinitely.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims? As the dissent notes, this decision means the victims won’t get money now. When is an open question, as well as whether it will be similar, more or less after litigation costs, and to whom it will be paid. What is certain is the Sacklers will be hurt more. (Unless a couple bizarre legal maneuvres pay off, e.g. the Sacklers extinguishing liability by way of a 2004 indemnification agreement.) So in a sense, this is deterrence and retribution winning over restitution [1]. [1] https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purposes-of-punishment/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose...

legitster 2y ago
> What is certain is the Sacklers will be hurt more. Maybe? They get all of the billions back and now have time and a reason to start building a defense.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > get all of the billions back They never gave up any cash to my knowledge. The plan was a promise. We can conclude the Sacklers are worse off right now given they (and the creditors) accepted the deal. They may be materially better off in the future. But the rest of their lives will be about this.
  - legitster 2y ago
    ??? The Supreme court case was specifically about the $6 billion dollars the Sacklers committed to the bankruptcy fund. And this ruling says they are not allowed to contribute to it.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Supreme court case was specifically about the $6 billion dollars the Sacklers committed to the bankruptcy fund Committed, not contributed.

dragonwriter 2y ago

No, if it wasn't a better realization of the victims’s goals than going to trial, why would the victims have accepted it? Its absolutely a loss for the victims. Not just them, but they are among those losing.

bradford 2y ago

> Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims? I can see it going both ways, yes: this means that 6 billion dollars are not immediately available for compensation. On the other hand, certain states (Washington was one, if I recall) argued that 6 billion dollars was such a pitifully small amount (relative to the damage done) that they declined to accept compensation in hopes that future lawsuits would yield more. I view this decision as rejecting the immediate compensation, but opening up possibility for greater compensation in the future (with obvious risks and delays).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> certain states (Washington was one, if I recall) argued that 6 billion dollars was such a pitifully small amount (relative to the damage done) that they declined to accept compensation As the dissent notes, “all 50 state Attorneys General have signed on to this plan.” The holdouts were “a small group of Canadian creditors and one lone individual.” I always thought of the Sackler carve-out as a scam. But the dissent gives me pause. This ruling trades restitution for retribution. In all likelihood, many classes of victims—such as small victims, small states and local governments—won’t see a penny, at least for years.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > This ruling trades restitution for retribution IMO the money is a pittance, sounds like a lot but it's just a fraction of what the federal government spends on any given day. We can afford to carve out the financial resources to help victims. The retribution is totally worth it, because it needs to be understood that behavior like this will get punished. It should be painful, not just the cost of doing business.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    I agree, but absent John Stewart taking it up [1] were not paying out the victims, and I’m not a victim, so it’s easy to discount their desire for the $3,500 to $48k. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/jon-stewart-9-11-congress.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/jon-stewart-9-11...

tadhgpearson 2y ago

Well, not a loss for the legal profession for sure :D Will the victims come out with more in their pockets than they would have from this settlement? I guess we'll find out...