3 ms·

why would it be harder? wouldn't it just be the next family that tries to get away with crap like this will be scolded sooner? it seeem like if you want people

by nox101 2y ago

why would it be harder? wouldn't it just be the next family that tries to get away with crap like this will be scolded sooner? it seeem like if you want people stop doing bad things you can't let them get away with bad things. here, the family was trying to get away with billions. The bankruptcy court said, "yay, ok". The Supreme Court said "no, not ok" I don't understand the dissent. unless the dissent is friends of the family trying to spin.

LordKeren 2y ago
It’s harder because it requires piercing the veil of protection of an LLC, a legal construct that is explicitly designed to limit liabilities. There are simply more legal hurdles to this. Though I do agree with the conclusion that the bankruptcy court should not be able to grant immunity to the Sackler family. It feels deeply, deeply immoral
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > harder because it requires piercing the veil of protection of an LLC Source? It’s harder because they’re indemnified by Purdue, and their individual liability is far from established. (The opinion and dissent both refer to a monolithic “Sacklers,” but they’re individuals and trusts and whatever.)
- prepend 2y ago
  I think the argument is against the Sacklers personally and their actions, not based on their ownership stake of the LLC. So this wouldn’t involve piercing the veil. Only if suitors were going against Sackler assets to pay off Purdue corporate stuff.
legitster 2y ago
If you want money from the Purdue bankruptcy entity: you just file a claim while they still have money. If you want money from the Sackler family: you need to lawyer up, prove a bunch of personal liability claims (which are very, very hard cases to win), and wait a long time. And hope they still have money. While it may feel nice to eventually, maybe, be able to throw the Sackler family in jail, it basically just blows up the ability to do mass tort arbitration. From the dissent, which even includes Sotomayor and Kagan: "As a result of the Court’s decision, each victim and creditor receives the essential equivalent of a lottery ticket for a possible future recovery for (at most) a few of them. And as the Bankruptcy Court explained, without the non-debtor releases, there is no good reason to believe that any of the victims or state or local governments will ever recover anything."
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If you want money from the Purdue bankruptcy entity: you just file a claim while they still have money And as the dissent notes, this class includes the Sacklers per their 2004 indemnification agreement. So we first need to nullify that to avoid draining.
  - nickff 2y ago
    How would you propose the agreement be nullified? Was it fraudulent, or performed without shareholder approval?
tzs 2y ago
An important but frequently overlooked aspect of the law is that by the time the courts are involve it is often too late for there to truly be justice. Things have often happened that cannot be undone. Often parties that are at fault do not have the resources to pay their share of damages. No matter what the court does in those situations someone is getting screwed.

by nox101 2y ago

LordKeren 2y ago

It’s harder because it requires piercing the veil of protection of an LLC, a legal construct that is explicitly designed to limit liabilities. There are simply more legal hurdles to this. Though I do agree with the conclusion that the bankruptcy court should not be able to grant immunity to the Sackler family. It feels deeply, deeply immoral

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> harder because it requires piercing the veil of protection of an LLC Source? It’s harder because they’re indemnified by Purdue, and their individual liability is far from established. (The opinion and dissent both refer to a monolithic “Sacklers,” but they’re individuals and trusts and whatever.)
prepend 2y ago
I think the argument is against the Sacklers personally and their actions, not based on their ownership stake of the LLC. So this wouldn’t involve piercing the veil. Only if suitors were going against Sackler assets to pay off Purdue corporate stuff.

legitster 2y ago

If you want money from the Purdue bankruptcy entity: you just file a claim while they still have money. If you want money from the Sackler family: you need to lawyer up, prove a bunch of personal liability claims (which are very, very hard cases to win), and wait a long time. And hope they still have money. While it may feel nice to eventually, maybe, be able to throw the Sackler family in jail, it basically just blows up the ability to do mass tort arbitration. From the dissent, which even includes Sotomayor and Kagan: "As a result of the Court’s decision, each victim and creditor receives the essential equivalent of a lottery ticket for a possible future recovery for (at most) a few of them. And as the Bankruptcy Court explained, without the non-debtor releases, there is no good reason to believe that any of the victims or state or local governments will ever recover anything."

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If you want money from the Purdue bankruptcy entity: you just file a claim while they still have money And as the dissent notes, this class includes the Sacklers per their 2004 indemnification agreement. So we first need to nullify that to avoid draining.
- nickff 2y ago
  How would you propose the agreement be nullified? Was it fraudulent, or performed without shareholder approval?

tzs 2y ago

An important but frequently overlooked aspect of the law is that by the time the courts are involve it is often too late for there to truly be justice. Things have often happened that cannot be undone. Often parties that are at fault do not have the resources to pay their share of damages. No matter what the court does in those situations someone is getting screwed.