The Sackler family members who own OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma say they're disappointed in the Supreme Court's rejection of a nationwide settlement.
  • Ruorc@lemmy.ml
    1·
    2 months ago

    I’m torn on this one. Obviously, the victims deserve to get payment and whatnot, but the other half of this is that the bankruptcy court agreement with the Sackler family would prevent them from future liability for similar cases. Supreme Court is saying the bankruptcy court didn’t have the power to grant that, which, if excluded, would open the Sacklers to future lawsuits. I’m all for that family getting sued into oblivion, but we can’t trust the Supreme Court to do what’s right either. We have to treat everything they do with suspicion. This comes on the heels of the ruling of ‘bribery is now basically legal’, so it makes me wonder how much the Sackler family is paying them.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    Far too many wealthy people have forgotten the alternative to these processes of checks and balances. And too often they get away with little to no damages done to them. As QoL continues to plummet, they will eventually push someone with nothing to lose.

    • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 months ago

      It was rejected because the settlement would have made the company bulletproof against any further civil suits and effectively left the most villainous people with billions of dollars

          • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
            01·
            2 months ago

            Quote the block you’re referring to please. The lawyer wouldn’t be calling this a major setback if the plan was flawed (what you’re seemingly claiming) - in fact:

            “The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department, argued that the bankruptcy law does not permit protecting the Sackler family from being sued. “

            Which actually means the opposite of what I think you’re getting at. Even if they bankrupted, they could still be sued. Help me understand where/what you saw that lead to this rationale.

            • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 months ago

              You read the same article I did buddy, I don’t have any other information. If you disagree with my assessment of it that’s fine, I’m not going to sit here and copy/paste the whole article for you though.

                • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  2 months ago

                  Dude, it literally says it in the article in the post. If you can’t be bothered to read it that’s not my problem. I’m not going to go through and post quotes and links to an article that the post has already provided. It’s not difficult, just click the link in the post