I think the question the parent is asking is how should the bankruptcy of one entity (Purdue Pharma) be allowed to protect individual members of the Sackler family?
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 think the question the parent is asking is how should the bankruptcy of one entity (Purdue Pharma) be allowed to protect individual members of the Sackler family?
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).
> That's what a bankruptcy is? It "immunize" you against past liabilities.
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.
> 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.
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.