DOJ Seeks To Block Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Deal
npr.org
npr.org
The bankruptcy proceedings have been absurd in this case particularly due to the litigation shield for the Sacklers so a renegotiation would be huge. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-01/sackler-f...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#Un...
Morally, absolutely. The Sacklers cannot be allowed to walk away with billions AND immunity from future suits.
Further, at least in Canada, parliament can institute ex post facto laws by invoking the nothwithstanding clause. Always a little hairy politically, but legal and compatible with the rule of law.
[edit] I would further argue that ex post facto laws in general are immoral.
In this case, is there a more moral solution that remains within the realm of legal? Perhaps not, but I'd like the JD to try, since the proposed solution strikes me as allowing the Sackler family to profit massively off immoral activities.
IMO (as a layman, not a lawyer), I'm unclear on why a corporate bankruptcy settlement involves immunity for the Sacklers. If we are not allowed to pierce the corporate veil, it should go both ways. If they want to keep their fortunes, they should remain open to civil suits. Alternatively, they can forfeit the vast majority of their fortunes in return for immunity from future suits.
Interested to see other replies re: your comment!
The precedence that we will not tolerate crimes as a path to unimaginable wealth is worth more than they could bankroll.
Just my opinion, but the only justice here is to take their wealth away. A prison sentence is pretty meaningless unless they're in for life, which of course we all know a few years is the more likely reality (and I'm not advocating for life either).
The reason I say "real" is because even if we meant to take "all" of their wealth, what are the chances we actually get all of it? And without getting all of it, a seemingly negligible amount of cash, like 10MM which is <0.1% relative to >10,000MM, can still make the crime "worth it."
You can't just go "maybe discovery in this civil case will reveal the criminal conspiracy" and then go "eh, guess not".
I am almost certain that the Sacklers thought they were producing drugs which would relieve pain and help end-users live happier and more productive lives. This may have been self-deception, but I don't have the knowledge to do a cost-benefit analysis of this situation (though I'd be interested to see one on opiods).
It's much easier to convict the corporation than its members.
People do get convicted of misconduct at a corporation. It's just that in some (most?) instances, the criminality is so diffuse that you can't convict anyone of anything, so you end up convicting the corporation instead.
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the state needs to prove intent to kill. It could have been negligence, eg they knew people were getting addicted but declined to change their aggressive marketing tactics.
what are you expecting to turn up? Documents/recordings that say "yep we totally knew that oxycotin was addictive and we're moving profits out with the goal of hiding them from creditors"?
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1329736/downl...
The investment banker's advice was "the one thing you don’t want to do is to become poor". Purdue Pharma going under wouldn't make them poor. So it couldn't mean the latter.
Sackler referred to the Virginia courtroom where Purdue Pharma's parent company admitted to fraud and agreed to pay $600 million. And "all of these courtrooms". Not to operating losses or any such thing.
> Is the state going to convince the jury of that better than the defense?
There's 1 way to find out.
Just like with tons of other cases, the actual thing people trip on are entirely ancillary -- tax evasion, wire fraud, embarrassing emails, obstruction of justice. I'll bet there are a dozen obstruction of justice charges that can be levied if you search thru emails.
Again, they are getting white-glove treatment, so we havent bothered to look for the stuff that will force a more reasonable settlement for the millions of innocent victims.
And the response to that is that they're well funded to resist those attacks by the government, so it will end up being a drain on resources on both sides. legal MAD, if you will.
But we also have laws around when they can and can't be applied. There are standards of evidence and suspicion that must be reached. Due process exists even for billionaires. Also, prosecutors or investigators might not use those tools if they doubt useful evidence would be uncovered.
Certainly this sounds weird, but there's very clear president. OJ Simpson was both acquitted in criminal court and convicted in a civil suit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Civi...
It is also important that the government reflect on its on role in letting this get as bad as it did.
Tobacco kills 7x as many people as opiates in the USA every day/week/month.
Is the loss of human life from the sale (without a prescription!) of tobacco in the usa a credible figure?
The issue with oxycontin is it helped create a massive generation of addicts who have all sorts of other things associated with them like: rehab, homelessness, and crime. So I'm not sure of the total impact, but likely much higher per person.
They're still around, operating, and legitimate, and causing 7x the destruction of human life of this so-called "epidemic".
Either both are wrong, or neither are.
Personally I have an extremely unpopular opinion regarding culpability for the damage here, but I'll be satisfied if we as a society can simply agree that both are wrong, or neither are, but if one is wrong, then so must the other be.
If they're both wrong, we should be at least 7x as angry and actionable against big tobacco (but rationally, quite a bit more, as they have been killing people, including those nearby who don't choose to consume the drug, at a higher rate for a much longer period of time).
If neither of them are wrong (and cigarettes should still be available for sale) then we should put down the Purdue pitchforks.
A better legal drug to compare could be alcohol, however, your doctor wasn't marketed to give you vodka for your back pain. There was a time were doctors were giving out opiates like candy, this opiate epidemic has been created by big pharma and doctors. I was prescribed opiates for muscle strains and the first few times you take them it feels so good. However, tolerance builds really quickly and people who have a tendency to abuse substances will instantly get hooked.
On the other hand opiate addiction came out of nowhere, and surpassed vehicle related deaths before anyone noticed. It kills much more randomly, and the problem seems to be getting worse. Expecting opioid death numbers to get worse in the near future isn’t unreasonable. It wouldn’t surprise me if opioids end up killing more per capita than nicotine does in the near future.
Also, there’s a pretty stark difference between the impact on life of these two substances aside from the mortality risk. While smoking does reduce quality of life, not many people end up in jail or homeless because of their nicotine addiction.
Opiates do kill too many people but there are more social externalities than tobacco. I think (hopefully) the 2nd hand smoking effects have diminished, though I'm sure kids in homes are still exposed.
But opiates touch everyone that knows an addict or is related to one.
And the cost of theft, homelessness, HIV/hep infections, blood infections, huge amount of overdose calls.
But I agree the costs of tobacco are huge. And the costs of the oil & gas industry's behavior are even bigger than all of these combined.
The answer is, of course, that prosecutors have quite a bit of leeway in coming up with deals that will get the best outcome that they think they can get. But I agree that it doesn't feel right, that the Sacklers can further use their corporate structure to protect them from their actions.
I thought the settlement was between the government and the Sacklers directly?
>Under a separate civil settlement, individual members of the Sackler family will pay the United States $225 million arising from the alleged conduct of Dr. Richard Sackler, David Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Dr. Kathe Sackler, and Jonathan Sackler (the Named Sacklers).
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
Purdue and the Sacklers faced federal suits from DOJ and its offices, which were tentatively resolved by the settlements you linked.
Separately, Purdue is now in bankruptcy proceedings, to which the federal, state, and local governments are party because of their suits.
The Sackler immunity request is part of the bankruptcy proceeding, not the DOJ settlement.
My guess is still the same. It's referred to "the perdue pharma bankrupcy" by the media, but technically the defendants involve the sacklers as well.
Usually financial liabilities. Also, "you" is different here -- Purdue Pharma is the bankrupt entity, but the Sackler family is shielded. Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers are distinct legal entities.
Can you link the docket?
Patents create an awful incentive structure. In medicine, a deadly one.
2. discovery doesn't exist for criminal cases. you can't ask the accused to turn up relevant evidence.
3. they probably have all the relevant evidence, from the case against perdue pharma (the company)
4. the juicy evidence that proves their guilt is probably destroyed by now, or at least stored with a privileged party (eg. their laywers).
The Sacklers need that kind of choice.
EDIT: The DoJ needs to confiscate their assets under current DEA assert forfeiture law, the same one the local cops use to steal from ordinary people without cause. Then arrest them. Let's see how long the litigation draws out under those circumstances.
These are very serious crimes. Indeed, even if they were not, harming society in this way should be criminalized.
I say this despite being pro-legalization. The issue isn't the drug itself, it's the lying, the undermining use of institutions like your family doctor, the FDA, to push this drug as if it were harmless, and to sit back and watch it take its toll, rolling in dough. It hurts.
>8 hour video deposition
pass
>"transcripts of calls to the bankruptcy court from those impacted by the opiod crisis"
People calling in and saying that oxycotin ruined their lives doesn't really count as a "specific crime".
the Sacklers have tight control and micro managed decisions it's their intention & action. But Purdue was smart enough not to make spreadsheets tracking doctor bribe ROIs ...
I'm interested in why there isn't more info/investigation on the revelation in Gibney's doc that a Purdue exec sat in a motel room with the regulator in charge to write the original oxycontin label, which was then approved with very very questionable language. That potentially less addictive language was the entire lynchpin of their (minimally moral) crimes. Especially with any future revolving doors or benefits.
I guess it would be worse if this were criminal litigation and not civil litigation, but it's still kind of incredible to see such a naked admission that if you can outspend the attorney general's office, you'll get special treatment.
Fortunately, federal prosecutors love going after high profile individuals and aren't scared of their lawyers.