3 ms·
> The Sacklers were absolved of financial liability, not criminal I don't understand how this changes anything; why would it make any more sense for the subset
by saghm 2y ago
> The Sacklers were absolved of financial liability, not criminal
I don't understand how this changes anything; why would it make any more sense for the subset of the victims who settled to absolve the Sacklers of financial liability towards to the victims who didn't settle? The type of liability doesn't change the fact that victims not part of the settlement shouldn't be restricted by the terms of it; being able to push their own case separately is the entire reason why people are allowed to opt out of class action settlements.
- legitster 2y agoAs the dissent pointed out, getting voluntary concessions from parties is generally considered a good outcome in bankruptcy court and part of the reason it exists in the first place. Any time you can take a million lawsuits and turn it into one saves a lot of legal fees for everyone and frees up our court system. Another thing the dissent pointed out is that anyone who doesn't participate in the group settlement is only going to get the money first-come/first-serve. In bankruptcy court you can split the money more or less evenly. If everyone litigates separately, only the people with more senior claims get their money before the funds run out.