[kelnos]

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.

[gruez]

> 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).

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...

[bb611]

These are different cases.

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.

[gruez]

>Separately, Purdue is now in bankruptcy proceedings, to which the federal, state, and local governments are party because of their suits.

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.