5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.