Justice Department: Resolution with Purdue Pharma and Sackler Family | Hacker News Reader

Justice Department: Resolution with Purdue Pharma and Sackler Family

justice.gov

46 pointshhs30 comments

Conviction of 3 felonies including conspiracy to defraud the United States and yet no one is going to jail. Another failure of our Justice system.

If Corporations are people, and they commit felonies, maybe the US can assume control of the corp?

In an ideal future of course

> If Corporations are people, and they commit felonies, maybe the US can assume control of the corp?

"Corporate death penalty" was a term people used to a use a lot.

[It turns out it's already a real-thing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution), but push-back from shareholders in response to attempts at accountability predictably led to nothing happening.

I think the response is to make shareholders more legally, and especially unescapably, responsible for the companies they jointly own. Ignorance and the fact that _no-droplet-blames-itself-for-a-flood_ should be an excuse[1].

[1] Though I do think about how this might discourage _activist investors_ that willingly buy shares of immorally/amorally-acting publicly traded companies and then attempt to steer it in the right direction - so perhaps if we could exempt voting-shareholders who can demonstrate a clear and consistent voting record in the public good to the extent that their shares permitted them to then they would escape prosecution?

“public good” is a highly variable term, though. While one person might argue that (example only) Palantir is the grossest public avil imaginable, another person could argue that they are a public good, on the basis of helping law enforcement.

How do you derive a legally acceptable definition of public good in investment? An evil person could invest just as much as a supposedly good person, but with the intent of making money, but otherwise be amoral about everything else related to the investment.

The same that say corporations are people tend to also be proponents of the death penalty. I wonder how that would work in practice.

A real habeas corp-us.

If interested, there was a piece early this month that guesstimated this settlement. It was called “The Sackler Family’s plan to keep its billions”: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-sackler-familys...

> ...the resolution in today’s announcement re-affirms that the Department of Justice will not relent in its multi-pronged efforts to combat the opioids crisis

> The criminal resolution includes the largest penalties ever levied against a pharmaceutical manufacturer

Jeez the DOJ surely sprinkled a ton of 'self-congratulating' language in this for simply doing their job.

So $225M lawbreaking fee on $11B? Maybe 2.25B on 11B if you count the company bk, if they were still invested.

edit: the above seems wrong. More like $8B + 2.25 maybe?

https://www.forbes.com/profile/sackler/#bf7fa1c5d631

NYTimes quoted 8.3 billion in fines.

From NYTimes: “ Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, has agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and face penalties of roughly $8.3 billion, the Justice Department announced on Wednesday, a move that could pave the way for a settlement of thousands of lawsuits brought against the company for its role in the opioids epidemic.

The company’s owners, members of the wealthy Sackler family, will pay $225 million in civil penalties. Federal prosecutors said the settlement did not preclude criminal charges against Purdue executives or individual Sacklers.”

It still leaves $2.7 billion profit and no jail time.

It's a slap in the face.

Plus this is only for Purdue. How many other companies pumped opioids into the medical system? Not a peep out of law enforcement at all. You can wake a judge in the middle of the night to send 2 swat teams on a dynamic entry to get a 16 year old with 12 oz of cannabis. But the guys pumping over 90% of the opioids in the medical system? Crickets.

That's where you know that money talks in America.

> That's where you know that money talks in America.

Is there any place where money does not talk?

Would it be possible for the victims to sue them now since criminal actions have been proven?

No, it leaves $10.5B profit to the family since they've already drained $10.7B from the company and are only being fined $225M themselves.

The family will lose control of the company but they knew this was coming and drained it ahead of time. DoJ is letting them get away with it.

$8.3B is extremely misleading- the article says it won't happen.

"A forensic audit last year by Purdue found that the Sacklers directed at least $10.7 billion in the company’s proceeds to family-controlled trusts and holding companies"

So the family extracts $10.7B from the company and pays a $225M fine. The company is fined $8.3B but most likely goes bankrupt because it's already been drained by the family.

What a crock.

Insys pharmaceuticals used this[0] rap music video to push their sales. Insys VP of sales was in the mascot.

While tasteless, harmful, degrading, moronic, and frankly, childish, that video is nothing compared to the decades of racketeering orchestrated by the sackler mob.[2]

One iota less than the sacklers deaths in prison and disgorgement is a miscarriage of justice and slap in the face to everyone in this country.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtwFZwjCSTE

[2] https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/10/startling-documents-reve...

> “With criminal guilty pleas, a federal settlement of more than $8 billion, and the dissolution of a company and repurposing its assets entirely for the public’s benefit, the resolution in today’s announcement re-affirms that the Department of Justice will not relent in its multi-pronged efforts to combat the opioids crisis.”

Dissolution of a company? Which one? Purdue Pharma is still alive AFAIK.

I think the DoJ's plan is for the Government to own Perdue Pharma, operated as a public-interest corporation in the same vein as Amtrak and the Post Office.

The Justice Department announcement says:

"The resolutions do not include the criminal release of any individuals, including members of the Sackler family, nor are any of the company’s executives or employees receiving civil releases."

Isn't it a bit early to fulminate about how nobody is going to jail?

> "impeding the lawful function of the DEA by [continuing] to market its opioid products to more than 100 health care providers [...] and by reporting misleading information to the DEA"

and

> "Purdue made payments to two doctors [...] to write more prescriptions of Purdue’s opioid products. "

Those are the crimes for which the 2.5 Billion and 225 million are proper, justified atonement and they're all good with society now, then?

Let me know when they start going after executives at these companies and throwing them in jail.

Otherwise, this isn't justice. It's business as usual.

This is just political theater. Purdue is responsible for what? 8% of the opioids that were pumped into the medical industry by Big Pharma. Max. (And that's being generous.) That means 92% of the problem was not sanctioned at all by our "Justice" Department. So they slap the hands of one of the small fries come election time, and we're dumb enough to keep voting for them. Both sides engage in this nonsense too, that's what's so disheartening.

There is obviously too much money up there to go after the big guys. I get that. But at some point, man, can't we strap on the gloves and try to do the right thing? For once? This whole "Justice" Department action is a slap in the face to communities dealing with the opioid crisis out here in flyover country.

While small to the current scale of things, Purdue is a massive reason why it even became this scale.

The executives and the family should be jailed. They won’t be and that’s why this is sad. They will all continue to live wealthy lives off the deaths of so many people.

A fine is nothing and it just tells anyone who is thinking of doing the same that it’s still potentially worth doing.

What would the share of responsibility be if we adjust for the potency of the various kinds of opioids?

> throwing them in jail

I hear this a lot - but what actual, specific crime did they commit that warrants a custodial sentence? What exact law or regulation in the US Federal Code did they break?

The evidence of their malfeasance is plain to see, but malfeasance itself isn't illegal - nor is harming the public-at-large indirectly through legal business planning and legal business deals. As it is, I don't believe there is a law against establishing corporate sales targets for harmful prescription drugs or fostering an internal company culture that encourages their overprescription. Nor do I believe is it illegal for drugs companies to give unintentionally misleading - or even intentionally misleading - marketing material to doctors and pharmacists because there's so much current legal leeway (for reasons I won't get into).

> what actual, specific crime did they commit that warrants a custodial sentence?

As another commenter pointed out:

> Conviction of 3 felonies including conspiracy to defraud the United States and yet no one is going to jail.

Those are crimes punishable by prison sentences, if the judge so chooses to enforce the law. I bet nobody lost their right to vote either, despite the felonies.

Admittedly I am not a lawyer, and I am definitely not an expert on Citizens v. United (which is essential to the arguments being made here), but I still don't believe they couldn't be put in jail - all it would take is for the judge to have a motivation to do so.

Well, they are going after them, if you read the article:

> The resolutions do not include the criminal release of any individuals, including members of the Sackler family, nor are any of the company’s executives or employees receiving civil releases.

That means Justice is leaving open the possibility of bringing criminal charges against the Sackler family.

The felonies they mention in the article are felonies committed by the corporation, which cannot be jailed, but -- due to the fact that Justice has forced the company to dissolve in its current state (pending approval) -- has been essentially sentenced to death. The company's assets (which are valuable and vital to public health) will be owned by a new legal person, a trust operating a public benefit corporation.

Where are you seeing that they are going after individuals criminally?

I did read the article, and it says nothing of the sort. Just that they're not ruling it out.

Well, that's how it starts right? The claim that they are not going after the family is not truthful. The possibility is out there, and given that they have just secured one fo the largest judgements ever against a pharma company, Justice is clearly not afraid of the Sackler family.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com