4 ms·
> the argument for is textual And here's the language: "any other appropriate provision" The Sacklers: the law says we can take away other people's rights to
by erichocean 2y ago
> the argument for is textual
And here's the language: "any other appropriate provision"
The Sacklers: the law says we can take away other people's rights to sue us as part of a bankruptcy settlement.
SC: Yeah, no, the text doesn't say that.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the law says we can take away other people's rights to sue us as part of a bankruptcy settlement As the dissent notes, third-party releases are part of the law. The turn is on whether the Sacklers are having third-party liabilities discharged versus released. The solution may be in re-drafting the Plan so it’s more clearly a release. That might mean the Sacklers can be sued for fraud, but not other things.
- erichocean 2y agoIf this decision was just about third-party releases, it wouldn't be before the court. And you know that.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> If this decision was just about third-party releases, it wouldn't be before the court. And you know that. What is the difference between a discharge and release as it relates to the §1123(b)(6) “any other appropriate provision” power this case is about? You seem to have clarity the Court’s members couldn’t find.
- erichocean 2y agoYou, then: As the dissent notes, third-party releases are part of the law. Gets called out for over-simplifying the case. You, now: What is the difference between a discharge and release as it relates to the §1123(b)(6) “any other appropriate provision” power this case is about? Indeed. Maybe next time, stop pretending there isn't more to it.