5 ms·

Don't people just want things like this to pierce the corporate veil so the Sacklers could be individually prosecuted, and probably put away for life?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I’ve wondered about this too. On the one hand there are situations that deserve it. On the other hand I can see it opening up a new uncertainty for business. How do you draw the line?
- solardev 2y ago
  Murderous intent seems like a pretty easy line...? If you know your product is unsafe and then proceed to sell it anyway, well, it's hard to have sympathy for your moral ambiguity.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    How unsafe? Cars are rolling death machines, especially to pedestrians, but we sell plenty of them anyway. I don't have particular sympathy for Ford or Honda, but I think they should continue to exist.
    - pixl97 2y ago
      With cars they go under testing certification that defines their safety level, which is readily available. In this particular drug case they fraudulently misrepresented the risks of the product.
      - fragmede 2y ago
        Surely you're not implying that auto manufacturers have never misrepresented anything about their products, and gotten into legal trouble because of it.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  I'm all for opening up new uncertainties for businesses. Especially when they involve criminal intent.
- advael 2y ago
  It's quite strange to me that business leaders love talking about how they are being rewarded for taking risks when it's used to justify disproportionate executive pay and stock buybacks for investors, but in all discussions of economic and even criminal regulation surrounding businesses, a business being made to accept some liability for putting others at risk is considered too risky for business. At present, large swaths of the business world are heavily subsidized by the government, can write off operating losses on their taxes, are often funded by hedge funds and investors who don't seem to mind them being deeply unprofitable for many years, and hold things like the IP rights produced by any worker they've employed as a treasure trove of potential value to sell off for the benefit of the owners should the business fail. On top of that, we must also believe that it's good and right that it is nearly impossible to prosecute any actual decision-maker within a company for criminal conduct done or harm caused by that company, or else business is just too risky and the economy might collapse? To me this doesn't even warrant consideration, it's ridiculous on its face and perverts the notion of rule of law
  - jiggawatts 2y ago
    The Sacklers made enough money to have some left over for bri.. political contributions. They’re permanently immune to personal consequences now.
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    > nearly impossible to prosecute any actual decision-maker Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skilling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skilling https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/minnesota-executives-sentenced-prison-orchestrating-multimillion-dollar-fraud-schemes https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/minnesota-executives-sent... https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-biotech-executive-sentenced-7-years-jail-covid-test-fraud-2024-04-12/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-biotech-executive-sentenced...
    - advael 2y ago
      Yes, nearly impossible as I said before. The "nearly" qualifier acknowledges that this does sometimes nonetheless happen
howard941 2y ago
I don't know about that but what's going on is the court is rejecting what the Sacklers want, which is getting out of the civil liability claims against Purdue. You can do that if the bankruptcy plan provides for co-debtor stays. Sometimes the co-debtors get approved with it, sometimes not. In this case? Not.
- wyldfire 2y ago
  So some of the Sacklers' assets can be considered when settling accounts w Purdue's creditors?
  - voxic11 2y ago
    No it's just that the sacklers didn't get civil immunity from their misconduct which they wanted in exchange for giving up some of their assets to creditors.
GeekyBear 2y ago
After the fraudulent marketing claiming that their formulation was non-adictive, I certainly want to see the profits from Oxycontin clawed back from the Sackler family.
- hedora 2y ago
  Fraudulent marketing was the least of what they did. Among other things, they set the recommended dosage and timing to maximize addictiveness (by repeatedly making the patients high, and then putting them in withdrawal).

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I’ve wondered about this too. On the one hand there are situations that deserve it. On the other hand I can see it opening up a new uncertainty for business. How do you draw the line?

solardev 2y ago
Murderous intent seems like a pretty easy line...? If you know your product is unsafe and then proceed to sell it anyway, well, it's hard to have sympathy for your moral ambiguity.
- fragmede 2y ago
  How unsafe? Cars are rolling death machines, especially to pedestrians, but we sell plenty of them anyway. I don't have particular sympathy for Ford or Honda, but I think they should continue to exist.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    With cars they go under testing certification that defines their safety level, which is readily available. In this particular drug case they fraudulently misrepresented the risks of the product.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      Surely you're not implying that auto manufacturers have never misrepresented anything about their products, and gotten into legal trouble because of it.
candiddevmike 2y ago
I'm all for opening up new uncertainties for businesses. Especially when they involve criminal intent.
advael 2y ago
It's quite strange to me that business leaders love talking about how they are being rewarded for taking risks when it's used to justify disproportionate executive pay and stock buybacks for investors, but in all discussions of economic and even criminal regulation surrounding businesses, a business being made to accept some liability for putting others at risk is considered too risky for business. At present, large swaths of the business world are heavily subsidized by the government, can write off operating losses on their taxes, are often funded by hedge funds and investors who don't seem to mind them being deeply unprofitable for many years, and hold things like the IP rights produced by any worker they've employed as a treasure trove of potential value to sell off for the benefit of the owners should the business fail. On top of that, we must also believe that it's good and right that it is nearly impossible to prosecute any actual decision-maker within a company for criminal conduct done or harm caused by that company, or else business is just too risky and the economy might collapse? To me this doesn't even warrant consideration, it's ridiculous on its face and perverts the notion of rule of law
- jiggawatts 2y ago
  The Sacklers made enough money to have some left over for bri.. political contributions. They’re permanently immune to personal consequences now.
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  > nearly impossible to prosecute any actual decision-maker Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skilling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skilling https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/minnesota-executives-sentenced-prison-orchestrating-multimillion-dollar-fraud-schemes https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/minnesota-executives-sent... https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-biotech-executive-sentenced-7-years-jail-covid-test-fraud-2024-04-12/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-biotech-executive-sentenced...
  - advael 2y ago
    Yes, nearly impossible as I said before. The "nearly" qualifier acknowledges that this does sometimes nonetheless happen

howard941 2y ago

I don't know about that but what's going on is the court is rejecting what the Sacklers want, which is getting out of the civil liability claims against Purdue. You can do that if the bankruptcy plan provides for co-debtor stays. Sometimes the co-debtors get approved with it, sometimes not. In this case? Not.

wyldfire 2y ago
So some of the Sacklers' assets can be considered when settling accounts w Purdue's creditors?
- voxic11 2y ago
  No it's just that the sacklers didn't get civil immunity from their misconduct which they wanted in exchange for giving up some of their assets to creditors.

GeekyBear 2y ago

After the fraudulent marketing claiming that their formulation was non-adictive, I certainly want to see the profits from Oxycontin clawed back from the Sackler family.

hedora 2y ago
Fraudulent marketing was the least of what they did. Among other things, they set the recommended dosage and timing to maximize addictiveness (by repeatedly making the patients high, and then putting them in withdrawal).