4 ms·

> allow claimants to pierce the corporate veil and go after the family directly. This decision is a win both for that cause, and also forestalling precedent th

> allow claimants to pierce the corporate veil and go after the family directly. This decision is a win both for that cause, and also forestalling precedent that would allow future wrongdoing corporations from 'shielding the veil' so to speak through bankruptcy. A win-win indeed.

bumby 2y ago
At least initially, I'm glad to see this verdict if it means such behavior can't hide behind the corporate veil. However, it's important to acknowledge it's not necessarily a win-win-win. By reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, this decision seems to delay opioid victims the settlement they previously won. >"As a result, opioid victims are now deprived of the substantial monetary recovery that they long fought for and finally secured after years of litigation...virtually all of the opioid victims and creditors in this case fervently support approval of Purdue’s bankruptcy reorganization plan." Time will tell if this ruling gives enough preventative pressure to future cases to make it worth the additional pain to the present claimants.
- efitz 2y ago
  But now that the ruling potentially exposes the Sacklers directly, they have much more incentive to negotiate a new settlement. If the plaintiff's attorneys are clever, they will leverage this to come to a quick settlement of approximately the same amount, with the threat that delays will bring demands for higher amounts.
- labcomputer 2y ago
  > By reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, this decision seems to delay opioid victims the settlement they previously won. The problem is that this sets an ugly precedent. The bankruptcy settlement is basically "I can make a deal with A that takes away your ability to sue B, even though I wasn't suing B and you are". It makes no sense. The dissenting opinion is the epitome of "fuck you, I got mine." Suppose we discover next year that one of the RNA covid vaccines causes cancer with 100% probability. The vaccine maker, on the hook for trillions of dollars of damages with no possible way to pay, declares bankruptcy (victims get approximately nothing). Elon Musk steps in and offers to contribute 20 billion dollars to help compensate the victims who would otherwise get nothing. All he asks is that the bankruptcy court dismiss all claims related to his pay package, stock manipulation and libel on twitter. The victims overwhelmingly approve the settlement and the judge oks it. After all, bankruptcy judges have wide discretion and $20 billion is better than $0. Is that ok? In my analogy, Elon Musk (and most of the people suing him) are not related to the vaccine maker (but there could be overlap among some of the plaintiffs and Musk could own some shares of the vaccine maker). But, technically, the same is true with Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family and plaintiffs. Yes, the Sacklers are more closely related to Purdue than Musk and the hypothetical vaccine company, but that's just a matter of degree. In the Purdue bankruptcy, the victims of Purdue voted (and the court agreed) to take the Sackler's money and in exchange prevent anyone at all in the United States from suing the Sacklers about anything at all related to opioids. Even people who are not eligible to be members of the Purdue bankruptcy settlement cannot sue the Sacklers! If the Sackler settlement was allowed to stand, it effectively allows billionaires to buy their way out of liability for unrelated things if they donate some money to sympathetic victims. All they would need to do is create some degree of nexus between themselves and the entity declaring bankruptcy, sufficient for a bankruptcy judge to ok the settlement.
  - bumby 2y ago
    I don't disagree with any of this. That's the main reason why I said I think we'll have to wait and see if this ultimately leads to better outcomes. However, I think it's been shown that the very human idea of "fairness" can create spiteful, sub-optimal outcomes. Remember, "nobody gets anything" is also fair amongst victims, but certainly not optimal.
  - deanishe 2y ago
    > the court agreed As I understand it, the court didn't so much agree as practically force them to accept the deal. The whole thing was largely engineered by the Sacklers managing to get the case heard by probably the most Sackler-friendly judge in the country.

bumby 2y ago

At least initially, I'm glad to see this verdict if it means such behavior can't hide behind the corporate veil. However, it's important to acknowledge it's not necessarily a win-win-win. By reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, this decision seems to delay opioid victims the settlement they previously won. >"As a result, opioid victims are now deprived of the substantial monetary recovery that they long fought for and finally secured after years of litigation...virtually all of the opioid victims and creditors in this case fervently support approval of Purdue’s bankruptcy reorganization plan." Time will tell if this ruling gives enough preventative pressure to future cases to make it worth the additional pain to the present claimants.

efitz 2y ago
But now that the ruling potentially exposes the Sacklers directly, they have much more incentive to negotiate a new settlement. If the plaintiff's attorneys are clever, they will leverage this to come to a quick settlement of approximately the same amount, with the threat that delays will bring demands for higher amounts.
labcomputer 2y ago
> By reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion, this decision seems to delay opioid victims the settlement they previously won. The problem is that this sets an ugly precedent. The bankruptcy settlement is basically "I can make a deal with A that takes away your ability to sue B, even though I wasn't suing B and you are". It makes no sense. The dissenting opinion is the epitome of "fuck you, I got mine." Suppose we discover next year that one of the RNA covid vaccines causes cancer with 100% probability. The vaccine maker, on the hook for trillions of dollars of damages with no possible way to pay, declares bankruptcy (victims get approximately nothing). Elon Musk steps in and offers to contribute 20 billion dollars to help compensate the victims who would otherwise get nothing. All he asks is that the bankruptcy court dismiss all claims related to his pay package, stock manipulation and libel on twitter. The victims overwhelmingly approve the settlement and the judge oks it. After all, bankruptcy judges have wide discretion and $20 billion is better than $0. Is that ok? In my analogy, Elon Musk (and most of the people suing him) are not related to the vaccine maker (but there could be overlap among some of the plaintiffs and Musk could own some shares of the vaccine maker). But, technically, the same is true with Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family and plaintiffs. Yes, the Sacklers are more closely related to Purdue than Musk and the hypothetical vaccine company, but that's just a matter of degree. In the Purdue bankruptcy, the victims of Purdue voted (and the court agreed) to take the Sackler's money and in exchange prevent anyone at all in the United States from suing the Sacklers about anything at all related to opioids. Even people who are not eligible to be members of the Purdue bankruptcy settlement cannot sue the Sacklers! If the Sackler settlement was allowed to stand, it effectively allows billionaires to buy their way out of liability for unrelated things if they donate some money to sympathetic victims. All they would need to do is create some degree of nexus between themselves and the entity declaring bankruptcy, sufficient for a bankruptcy judge to ok the settlement.
- bumby 2y ago
  I don't disagree with any of this. That's the main reason why I said I think we'll have to wait and see if this ultimately leads to better outcomes. However, I think it's been shown that the very human idea of "fairness" can create spiteful, sub-optimal outcomes. Remember, "nobody gets anything" is also fair amongst victims, but certainly not optimal.
- deanishe 2y ago
  > the court agreed As I understand it, the court didn't so much agree as practically force them to accept the deal. The whole thing was largely engineered by the Sacklers managing to get the case heard by probably the most Sackler-friendly judge in the country.