[mwsfc]

The short of it from the article (my interpretation much simplified): the Sacklers would keep the bulk of their prior gains (however that may be defined) but will give up their ownership of the manufacturer of Oxycontin, a large contributor of their potential future gains. So yeah. That certainly doesn't seem like much of a penalty, given the fortune the family has already made and doesn't seem to provide any real disincentive for others not to follow suit in the future ....just make enough money before the lawsuits start. <sarcastic tone> Feels a little like FB's recent FTC "slap on the wrist".

[bilbo0s]

The thing is though, this stuff is hard. Getting the law to punish stuff like this is not as easy as people think it is. Prosecutors are out trying to find creative ways to sanction these sorts of people and corporations, but it's just not this simple, quick thing you can do.

Also, keep in mind a lot of this is being done with an eye to the future. In a very real way, the Sacklers are only, what? Maybe 8 to 10% of the problem? The rest of the opioids came from other corporations. So you get a settlement with the little guy, all of a sudden you're in a better position to pressure the other guys.

Maybe it does suck. Maybe it is infuriating. But the alternative is that you potentially lose leverage and you never get any of the bad guys. I guess I'm just saying, this stuff is harder than people think it is.

[taurath]

That’s the problem. You have 30,000 statutes to deal with a street dealer, but a billionaire family selling drugs is “hard” to prosecute. Justice never comes for the rich in the US.

Settlements for criminal conduct should be illegal full stop. Money shouldn’t be a get out of jail free card.

[dfxm12]

Why is it hard? Certainly, it is not a shortcoming of the prosecutors, but of the laws. Why don't these regulations have any teeth? Why do so many white collar criminals get away with so much? Once you're rich enough, you can lobby for (or against) laws.

But the alternative is that you potentially lose leverage and you never get any of the bad guys.

I see the alternative as voting in politicians who will pass laws and regulations with teeth, not kowtow to lobbyists.

[gscott]

Givimg up their ownership sounds like selling their shared at a profit, than using those profits to pay a fine. While keeping all of the other accumulated games.

[WorldMaker]

Which is exactly what's happening. They also already shifted all the important assets out of Purdue and set it up for immediate Chapter 11 Bankruptcy-based restructuring. It's corporate raiding, family style.

[Scoundreller]

It also kicks the can on future liabilities.

What a joke.