I suspect it won as the other option is having the entire thing destroyed and there being nothing left to settle over.
Sure, you can embroil the company in 1000 lawsuits, but the end result will be lawyers getting all the money.
Sure, you can embroil the company in 1000 lawsuits, but the end result will be lawyers getting all the money.
No, none of the people getting immunity are filing for bankruptcy, which is one of the absolutely ridiculous parts of this settlement. Why should a bankruptcy settlement even apply to them if that's the case?
Bankruptcy court is pretty much always like this, though. I remember the same kinds of things coming up during, e.g., SCO.
all the sackler billions should be clawed back and commensurately redistributed to literally everyone else.
Not even that. They agreed to give 4.3 billion dollars over the next 9 years. Given how much net worth they have, over that 9 years they will earn that much, or more, in interest. They're just giving up the next 9 years of growth, they'll still be multi-billionaires.
There is no acceptable punishment for a crime of this scale that doesn't adequately deter future criminals. Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families.
Well this is just a self-justifying statement. "Acceptable," "adequately," so many ways to weasel out of assigning any consequences. Let's just discuss how adequate a hypothetical punishment will be in the future that we both definitely know facts about.
>Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families.
Disrespectful to remedy the loss of one or more breadwinners? Disrespectful to prevent descendants from firing up the corporate grill again? I don't know what ethical standard you're using, but it seems to elevate suffering and misfortune.
Disgorgement and prison, the facts bear this out. That they were able to buy their way out of this is more evidence that the nation strives to protect criminals who have money and are white.
You're the one that invented that dichotomy, so you'll need to support it with more than speculation as a counterargument or admit it's just that.
The US can afford $4 billion in opioid relief efforts on its own (what's the yearly budget at federal and state level already?) so it's not like we're in a position to beg for scraps here. But really there's no reason why there would be nothing left of their fortune after lawyer fees.
More importantly, this stance makes it ok to make a profit this way. They would come out of this with billions of dollars more than they started with and no threat of ever being legally liable again. They should not have that money.
They set up a pharmaceutical empire with thousands of reps pushing disinformation to doctors and patients, they should absolutely have to deal with thousands of lawsuits come home to roost.
Exactly what I was thinking. Go after the Sacklers, relentlessly, as long as it takes, until they have nothing, and hopefully are in jail. The few billions of dollars coming out of this settlement aren't even a rounding error in the US federal budget, we can afford to just pay it ourselves. I'm happy to do that if it means putting the Sacklers behind bars, bankrupt.
Another option that I’m fond of: send them to jail for a very long time.