3 ms·

Matt Levine at Bloomberg gives an excellent explanation of what happened, the ruling, why etc without telling you what you should think is the right thing or ri

by harry8 2y ago

Matt Levine at Bloomberg gives an excellent explanation of what happened, the ruling, why etc without telling you what you should think is the right thing or right outcome. His explanations from first principles covering ground you already know are just excellent. Worthwhile reading for anyone who has to explain detailed, complex & technical subject matter. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-06-27/purdue-s-bankruptcy-went-too-far https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-06-27/purdue...

returningfory2 2y ago
The truly awesome thing about Matt Levine is how in complicated situations like this he doesn't try to pick the "right" side but instead leans in to how both sides have good points of view. In today's newsletter he quotes the majority opinion and says it's reasonable, and then quotes the contradicting dissent and says that's reasonable too. And they both are! A really difficult case with really difficult trade offs.
locallost 2y ago
As a layman, I find the dissenting opinion strange -- for a judge. Sure it might be more pragmatic and beneficial for the victims of this particular case to take the deal. But a supreme court can't possibly cover all cases, so IMHO it must deal with the law on a higher more principled level. The argument that the bankruptcy court did ok in this case and should be allowed to do this in general is iffy because it fails to take into account various realities of life, e.g. corruption. Limitless authority is for me not a good idea, and I think the decision of the majority makes more sense. > A bankruptcy court’s powers are not limitless and do not endow it with the power to extinguish without their consent claims held by nondebtors (here, the opioid victims) against other nondebtors (here, the Sacklers). But again, this is my regular Joe view on the matter. And it's true that the majority of victims in this case might be in the end worse off, but the decisions of a supreme court are relevant for a long long time.

by harry8 2y ago

returningfory2 2y ago

The truly awesome thing about Matt Levine is how in complicated situations like this he doesn't try to pick the "right" side but instead leans in to how both sides have good points of view. In today's newsletter he quotes the majority opinion and says it's reasonable, and then quotes the contradicting dissent and says that's reasonable too. And they both are! A really difficult case with really difficult trade offs.

locallost 2y ago

As a layman, I find the dissenting opinion strange -- for a judge. Sure it might be more pragmatic and beneficial for the victims of this particular case to take the deal. But a supreme court can't possibly cover all cases, so IMHO it must deal with the law on a higher more principled level. The argument that the bankruptcy court did ok in this case and should be allowed to do this in general is iffy because it fails to take into account various realities of life, e.g. corruption. Limitless authority is for me not a good idea, and I think the decision of the majority makes more sense. > A bankruptcy court’s powers are not limitless and do not endow it with the power to extinguish without their consent claims held by nondebtors (here, the opioid victims) against other nondebtors (here, the Sacklers). But again, this is my regular Joe view on the matter. And it's true that the majority of victims in this case might be in the end worse off, but the decisions of a supreme court are relevant for a long long time.