5 ms·

But also very likely that the case will go to court and the damages will be substantially higher.

by qarl 2y ago

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
      - FactKnower69 2y ago
        >The only reason a defendant settles is to minimize potential losses. ???
        qarl 2y ago
        Companies don't give away their money for free. If a company voluntarily enters into a settlement, it's because they think they're saving money somewhere else. In this case the Sacklers are granted immunity to all future lawsuits.
    - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
      > It's a loss of ~1/2 of their net worth. That's significant. It's a gain of billions of dollars that everyone agrees they should not have had in the first place. That's really much more significant. It's pretty telling that literally nobody says that the Sackler family should actually have this money, just varying degrees of it being hard to claw back from them. If someone walks into my house, stabs me with a knife, and steals the money on my dresser, keeping half of the money they took from me is the exact opposite of a loss for them.
      - micromacrofoot 2y ago
        There's no strong legal structure to allow it, the US justice system strongly favors the rich and corporations. Loose consensus isn't enough if there's no legal mechanism to do so. The deal was pragmatic in the absence of a clear path for actual consequences. It would be easier to rally an angry mob at this point.
        BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
        It sounds like you agree with me, since this is exactly a variation of it being hard to claw back, which is annoyingly analogous to letting rich people get away with whatever they want including theft and murder because trying is hard.
        micromacrofoot 2y ago
        "Trying is hard" is kind of an edge-lord take on an incredibly complicated problem. People have been trying to fix this longer than we've been alive.
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.

But also very likely that the case will go to court and the damages will be substantially higher.

by qarl 2y ago

But also very likely that the case will go to court and the damages will be substantially higher.

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
    - FactKnower69 2y ago
      >The only reason a defendant settles is to minimize potential losses. ???
      - qarl 2y ago
        Companies don't give away their money for free. If a company voluntarily enters into a settlement, it's because they think they're saving money somewhere else. In this case the Sacklers are granted immunity to all future lawsuits.
  - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    > It's a loss of ~1/2 of their net worth. That's significant. It's a gain of billions of dollars that everyone agrees they should not have had in the first place. That's really much more significant. It's pretty telling that literally nobody says that the Sackler family should actually have this money, just varying degrees of it being hard to claw back from them. If someone walks into my house, stabs me with a knife, and steals the money on my dresser, keeping half of the money they took from me is the exact opposite of a loss for them.
    - micromacrofoot 2y ago
      There's no strong legal structure to allow it, the US justice system strongly favors the rich and corporations. Loose consensus isn't enough if there's no legal mechanism to do so. The deal was pragmatic in the absence of a clear path for actual consequences. It would be easier to rally an angry mob at this point.
      - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
        It sounds like you agree with me, since this is exactly a variation of it being hard to claw back, which is annoyingly analogous to letting rich people get away with whatever they want including theft and murder because trying is hard.
        micromacrofoot 2y ago
        "Trying is hard" is kind of an edge-lord take on an incredibly complicated problem. People have been trying to fix this longer than we've been alive.

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.